Paraone Pita: Maori Purposes Bill — First Reading 
Paraone Pita: Maori Purposes Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:3959] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena tatou o te Whare nei. E tika ana kia timata mai tenei wahanga i homai ki a au i roto wa tatou reo rangatira na te mea he kaupapa Maori tenei na reira e tika ana kia whakatakoto mai waku whakaaro i roto wa tatou reo rangatira ahakoa no hea te tangata. Engari ka rongo mai te iwi whanui a kei te ora tonu ta tatou reo. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Speaker. Greetings to us of this House. It is fitting indeed that this part given to me should begin in our native tongue because this is a Maori matter and therefore it is an appropriate way for me to express my thoughts in our chiefly dialects regardless of where the person is from. But when the general public hear ah our language is alive still. 
] 
I preface my contribution to this debate by acknowledging everyone in the House in the Maori language given that this is a bill that affects Maori. It was introduced by the Minister of Maori Affairs and therefore it is only proper that I should say a few words in my mother tongue irrespective of which tribe I belong to—there was some comment from the sideline that I needed to make sure that my language was correct particularly that of my tribe. 
I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to say that we will support this bill going to a select committee. The system describes the bill as an omnibus bill. The bill amends the following four Acts: Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 the Maori Fisheries Act 2004 and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004. 
I will just make comment about Te Ture Whenua Maori Act and the amendments proposed to it. One of the amendments is to increase the number of judges of the Maori Land Court from eight to 14. I do not know whether the previous speaker got School Certificate but I went to Motatau Maori District High School and those figures suggest to me that the increase in the number of judges is six and not seven. One thing the bill does not say—and it will probably be of significance when the time comes for the appointment of extra judges to the Maori Land Court to be considered—is whether the increase in numbers should come from amongst Maori alone. New Zealand First is of the view that whoever makes up the pool for the number of new judges to be appointed to the Maori Land Court the best should be appointed—not by ethnicity but by legal intellect. I hope that that point may be addressed during the select committee process. 
The previous speaker questioned the need for extra judges. If he refers to two of the Acts this bill amends—the Maori Fisheries Act and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act—he will see that when those pieces of legislation were created and passed by this House a lot of responsibilities were passed to the Maori Land Court. During the select committee deliberation on those two pieces of legislation the bureaucracy was often asked whether in fact the Maori Land Court had the capacity to deal with this extra workload. While we were assured that it had it is obvious from the introduction of this particular bill that the Maori Land Court clearly did not have the capacity at the time. So I believe that this bill addresses that issue. 
The bill itself addresses part of the confidence and supply agreement that New Zealand First has with the Labour-led Government. In respect of the Treaty it ensures that the Treaty settlements process is expedited. This bill proposes that a time line be set and we will certainly support that time line. While we might think that it should be extended a bit further we support the setting of a time frame for historical claims—and a lot of people do not have a clear appreciation that the time frame relates to historical claims. What is more pleasing about this bill is that it actually defines what are “historical claims”. So for those of Maori kith and kin who are contemplating making claims it is quite clear what this bill is all about. 
The other issue is the question of delegation to the Deputy Chief Judge. It seems to me quite clear that the Chief Judge has a lot of work on his hands and is therefore required to seek the insertion of this measure into the bill to ensure that he is able to carry out his work and share some of his workload with his deputy. For New Zealand First that gives credence to our desire to see the positions of Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court and Chairman of the Waitangi Tribunal separated. While the bill does not go so far as to suggest that I signal to the House that it provides some ground for New Zealand First to submit a Supplementary Order Paper proposing a separation of those two positions currently held by one person the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court. 
This bill also provides legal coverage for decisions made by the Deputy Chief Judge back in the 1990s in relation to orders he made when everyone thought that his warrant to be Deputy Chief Judge was still active—and quite clearly it was not. While we have heard Opposition speakers questioning that whole issue I wonder whether in fact an approach has been made to any of the whanau hapu or iwi who have been affected by those orders made by the Deputy Chief Judge at the time. If none has then I suggest that a lot of the rhetoric we have heard tonight is just that—rhetoric. 
In reference to the amendments to the Treaty of Waitangi Act I have commented that we certainly support—and it is part of our policy and part of our agreement with the Government—the setting of a time frame. I say again that this does not refer to contemporary claims. The emphasis is on the lodging of the claim not on the settlement. I think that a lot of our people out there do not have a clear appreciation of just what this has meant. We are talking about the lodging of claims and not the settlement because we in New Zealand First believe it is important that the durability of claims not be compromised for bureaucratic expediency. Therefore we support the limitation to just the lodging of claims. Both the Maori Fisheries Act and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act called for extra input from the Maori Land Court. Therefore it is important that the increase in the number of judges be supported by this House. As the Minister of Fisheries mentioned Maori economic development is New Zealand economic development. If these two provisions can help make things a little clearer for us and for New Zealand then they ought to be supported. New Zealand First will certainly support this bill going to the select committee.