Paraone PitaPITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. Look listening to the responses of the Ministers who have been in the chair perhaps I should direct my comments to those who are sitting at home watching this debate. Nā reira koutou e noho tonu ki te wa kāinga anei ngā kōrero mā koutou nā te mea mōhio ana au kei a koutou nahe e whakarongo ki ngā kōrero i puta mai i tēnei taha.[So those of you who still live back home here are comments especially for you because I know you are the only ones who listened to the sentiments that came out of this side.]Firstly I would like to just quote the Minister in the chair in regard to tikanga. He said that tikanga is a matter of fact. If we take that to its full conclusion then the concerns of people around the country having witnessed the claims from the New Zealand Māori Council for the coastline of New Zealand claims made under tikanga Māori—perhaps those claims will be successful for the simple reason that using tikanga is a matter of fact. That is the issue that I know that I have concerns with in terms of legislating tikanga Māori. That is something that ought to be seriously considered before this bill proceeds to its next stage.I can recall in 2005 when the Ngāti Awa settlement bill was passed into law that part of that bill made reference to the establishment of an iwi group here in Wellington to represent those members of that tribe who lived here in Wellington. In fact the bill actually established a subtribe. I do not think that that was correct and New Zealand First—particularly its Māori members and there were seven of us—opposed the passing of that bill at that time. We did not think that it was right for this House to legislate and to create things like new hapū or new iwi groups. I think that what we are discussing here—and the member from Te Tai Tonga articulated very well I thought his concerns and certainly our concerns in regard to that part of Part 1.The other issue is that the Minister for Māori Development made reference to the fact that this bill came out as the result of a review panel—it was the work of a review panel. But what he failed to say was that the review panel did not do what it was originally asked to do and it came back with a different response. So this bill is actually a result of that decision by the review panel at the time. That was confirmed during the submission process by the submission from the Māori Women's Welfare League. Its spokesperson is a trained lawyer and she made the point quite strongly that the review panel reported on something that was not asked for.The other thing I would like to talk about is the meaning of owner". We are now talking about owners; previously we talked about beneficiaries. I do not know what happened to beneficiaries but we are now owners and as all Māori will tell you they are not owners; they are merely guardians for their time on Earth. When they pass on—Marama Fox: Is that tikanga?PITA PARAONE: Of course it is. But the bill does not make reference to that. It calls them owners so I do not know what happened to the issue of beneficiaries.The other thing was the fragmentation of shares. That is a concern that non-Māori have; for Māori that is not a concern. Whether you call them owners or beneficiaries that is a fact. The issue of fragmentation is not a matter or tikanga; it is just a matter of ensuring that those people who whakapapa to the original beneficiaries maintain those interests on behalf of the next generation. I am not quite sure whether this bill articulates that fact.The other issue I wanted to make reference to—and the member for Tāmaki Makaurau certainly touched on it—was clause 9: "Evidence of applicable tikanga Māori". Here again when there is a conflict between hapū or iwi—the fact that they have to go to the High Court if they do not agree then that in itself will pose some impediment on the affordability for those people involved. I would suggest that we ought to look at this again.The other issue was the question of Māori reserves. Clause 5 says "(a) any land vested in the Māori Trustee as or for the purposes of a Māori reserve; and (b) any land that is subject to the Maori Reserved Land Act 1955." Can I say that for many hapū they have lands set aside that they would refer to as reserves but certainly are not covered by these two references made here in the bill. Again that comes under the issue of tikanga Māori. It may be quite a sacred place for the hapū but it certainly is not covered by any legislation. I suppose under tikanga Māori we can argue for that.Other than that I still believe and New Zealand First certainly believes that in spite of the number of consultation hui that the Minister has alluded to I still make the same comment that I did last night: that of all those hui not one of them actually resolved to support the bill. I think that that is the main point. If there was one then I will stand corrected. But compare that with the number of hui that the Minister has referred to. That certainly does not indicate full-scale support for the bill. Kia ora."