Paraone Pita: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Paraone Pita: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19603] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 A tena koutou. Tena koutou o te Whare nei. Tena hoki koutou Ngati Tuwharetoa ahakoa i te wa i puta mai tenei pire ko te ingoa ko Ngati Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau engari kua rereke te ingoa iaianei na ko Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty. 
[ 
Thank you and greetings to you of this House and also to you of Ngati Tuwharetoa despite the fact that when this bill came out it referred to  
“ 
Ngati Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau”. But the name of the bill has now been altered to the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. 
] 
On behalf of New Zealand First—and can I reiterate the point that we are the only non-aligned political party in this House—I rise to speak to the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. I want to note that when speaking of Ngati Tuwharetoa in this bill we are referring to those of Tuwharetoa based in the Bay of Plenty. I mention that specifically so as to differentiate this iwi from that of its kith and kin Tuwharetoa ki Taupo. 
 It is the intention of this bill to give effect to the deed of settlement entered into between the Crown and Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty. Before I go any further I want to remind the member who spoke before me that it is Parliament that makes the laws and not iwi. I wanted to remind him of that even though he took some time to make reference to the decision made by New Zealand First regarding the last settlement bill that this House dealt with. 
I acknowledge the presence of a number of members of Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty together with members of the claims negotiating team. They have arrived at this point after a journey that has taken them almost 16 years. I might add though that this journey had its genesis back in 1865 following the death of a Crown official at the hands of some local Maori. Unlike the response by present-day police the Crown at the time almost immediately mounted a 500-man expedition to apprehend those responsible. In September 1865 the Crown issued a proclamation of peace in spite of not being able to apprehend those sought. So the Crown felt that it was going to war. 
The point I make is that the journey taken to reach this stage has been long and arduous. In New Zealand First’s view this is clearly unacceptable. Like many other claims already made to the Waitangi Tribunal this claim relates to breaches by the Crown of its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi and in particular to the confiscation of most of the land within this iwi’s rohe inadequacies in the compensation court process and subsequent alienation of the remaining lands that were subject to the native land laws and Crown purchasing. 
In 1988 Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty registered their claim with the Waitangi Tribunal. The hearings were held during 1994 and 1995 followed by the release of the tribunal’s findings in 1999 and the commencement of negotiations in 1998. All this has culminated in the signing of the deed of settlement between the iwi and the Crown. 
It is unfair to claimants and detrimental to us moving on as a nation when such claims have to take such a long time to reach this stage. We in New Zealand First have already signalled our proposals for addressing the issue of the time it takes to complete claims. We would hasten the settlement process from the pre-negotiating stage through to the passage of settlement legislation. Time savings could be made at several stages by giving more adequate funding to the Office of Treaty Settlements and adequate resourcing to aid claimant groups. But given the lack of support from other parties in this House to advancing these proposals other claimants under this process will unfortunately have to endure similar waiting times. Having said that I note that the Prime Minister recently indicated that the Government will be proposing something similar. Like a certain other party on this side of the House we feel quite happy to share our policies with the Government. 
New Zealand First supports the settlement of genuine historical grievances. However the lack of progress in addressing such historical grievances has diverted attention from key areas where real social and economic progress for Maori could be made through sound education well-paid employment adequate health and improved housing. Under this bill the settlement provides financial and commercial redress of millions of dollars aimed at assisting Ngati Tuwharetoa with their economic and social development. Whether or not this amount can ever be considered fair compensation the key elements of the bill include acknowledgments that it is difficult to assess redress for the loss and prejudice suffered by Ngati Tuwharetoa. 
It is not possible to fully compensate Ngati Tuwharetoa for all the loss and prejudice suffered. However we note that in keeping with true Ngati Tuwharetoa tradition of giving to the nation what is their birthright the true meaning of the word “koha” is again being repeated with Ngati Tuwharetoa forgoing full compensation. Such koha is recognised by the Crown as a contribution to the development of our country New Zealand. 
Na reira he mihi tenei ki a koutou o Ngati Tuwharetoa. Na koutou i whakaarohia kia tukuna mai he koha ehara mo te karauna anahe engari mo tatou katoa e noho nei i roto o Aotearoa. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
 [ 
And so this is an acknowledgment to you Ngati Tuwharetoa. You considered amongst yourselves to gift it not only for the Crown alone but for all of us New Zealanders living here as well 
.] 
New Zealand First will be supporting this bill but we support it because there is no mention or reference made to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Firstly that would suggest to me and to all fair-minded people that the inclusion of such words is not necessary. Secondly it would suggest that perhaps the Government has perceived that to include such words without definition will not make this settlement as enduring as we would like to see it. We will certainly be supporting this bill. 
In conclusion I support the comments made by Mr Brownlee with regard to the use of the Maori language in this bill. I reassure him that the layout of the Maori text fits with the layout of the English text. I must point out that where the Maori translation identifies the members of the select committee reference is made to their political parties. Reference to political parties is absent in the English translation. Kia ora.