Paraone Pita: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Paraone Pita: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10083] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Given what appears to be a reluctance on the part of some other members to stand and participate in the second reading debate on the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill I on behalf of New Zealand First will take this opportunity to do so. Engari i mua i te haere tonu o tenei o aku korero e tika ana kia mihi atu ki nga hunga o Te Roroa e noho tonu ki te wa kainga ki te hakarongo i te ahuatanga o nga korero i puta mai i roto i te Whare nei e pa ana ki ta koutou pire. Na reira tena koutou. 
[ 
But before I continue with my address it is fitting that I acknowledge those ones of Te Roroa who remained at home to listen to how this debate relating to your bill fares. Greetings to you. 
] 
First of all I just say that I declare a vested interest in this bill and I do so for the simple reason that by whakapapa I am linked to Te Roroa although I will not be a beneficiary to this settlement. 
On behalf of New Zealand First it is my pleasure to take a call in the second reading debate on the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill. The bill has come back from the Maori Affairs Committee where we heard from submitters most of whom were linked by whakapapa to Te Roroa. I want to say that some disquiet was expressed by a number if not all of the submitters on a number of issues and all of this was in spite of their being part of the process that gave Te Roroa negotiators a mandate to accept the settlement with the Crown. 
Although some may disagree with what I am about to say certainly the feeling that some Te Roroa people presently have is that the quantum to settle this claim and all subsequent claims of Tainui and Ngai Tahu has in fact been affected by the terms of those two settlements—that is Tainui and Ngai Tahu. This gives rise to the thought of whether settlement quanta may not be as durable as they could be. However I am mindful that the negotiators have obtained the mandate from their people to accept the quantum in terms of this settlement and like the Hon Georgina te Heuheu I recognise the tino rangatiratanga of Te Roroa to do so. Some members of Te Roroa have mentioned to me on the side that they felt aggrieved that the negotiators had accepted the terms of settlement and that they had a sense of there being a fait accompli in terms of the offer made to them. 
I remind the House that this claim is the second from the north to actually reach this stage of settlement—the first of course being that of Te Uri o Hau. I also want to remind the House that the Waitangi Tribunal’s report on this claim was issued back in 1992 which is a reminder as to how long the people of Te Roroa have had to wait. In addition the 1992 report gave rise to the issue surrounding the “acquisition” of privately owned land for settlement. Of course that recommendation led to subsequent legislation ensuring that this did not occur. Notwithstanding that it ought to be noted that some of the lands that make up this particular settlement were once in private ownership and the owners of those lands are still feeling aggrieved by that. I ought to say that during the select committee’s hearing of submissions two submitters whom my comment applies to wanted to make submissions but for various reasons the committee judged not to accept their submissions. 
However this bill is about the claim from Te Roroa and it gives effect to the deed of settlement agreed to by the Crown and Te Roroa and signed by them on 17 December 2005. This bill legislates for a full and final settlement of all of Te Roroa’s historical claims and after listening to the tenor of some of the contributions made to the debate so far this evening I can see quite clearly that there is some doubt as to the durability of those settlements. I have come to realise that unless there is a willingness on the part of the Crown to take heed of whatever might be recommended by the select committee on the issue of quantum whatever we might think in terms of its fairness we are somewhat hamstrung. However I will acknowledge that in this instance some latitude was extended to allow for the extension to the deferred selection provisions that essentially will give Te Roroa up to 6 months after settlement date to purchase those properties included in the agreement at the date of the deed of settlement. If we consider that the time frame is roughly 2 years we see that the value of those lands would of course have increased in that time so I thank those who are responsible for making that decision in extending that time frame to Te Roroa. 
I want to comment on what the settlement provides for Te Roroa. In this settlement the quantum is regarded by some as one that places into question the durability of this settlement. In particular I make reference to the Waipoua commercial forest and the Kaharau block. In regards to the Kaharau block and the significance to Te Roroa of the wahi tapu status in which they regard this block there are some who feel that this settlement does not come anywhere near the heart of the Te Roroa claim. Although the opportunity for Te Roroa to acquire the total block may lie somewhere in the future the reality is that their financial resources are limited in terms of what cash resources they will have at their disposal following this settlement. I would have thought that a possibility could be for the Crown to take responsibility for the purchase of this block now or sometime in the future at least when the present landholders were prepared to sell. As the Rev. Daniel Ambler mentioned in his submission “Until this is settled Te Roroa elders will continue to feel enslaved.” 
Another submitter commented that enacting the proposed legislation would change the present iwi state of depression and grief mixed with hope to a state of a permanent sense of tangi once the Act removed the obligation of the Crown to address this grave injustice. 
The other part of the settlement I would like to comment on which is described in the bill is that of the commercial forest. The settlement must be reasonably acceptable to Te Roroa and it must be fair if the Crown’s stance is to hold on to land or profit from its sale and to continue to use returned Te Roroa land for another generation. I make reference specifically to the Waipoua commercial forest which will be returned to Te Roroa after the present forest has been felled. I would have thought that there might be an opportunity for the Crown to include those forests when returning it to Te Roroa. 
Quite clearly there is some doubt not only amongst the wider community but certainly within Te Roroa about the durability of this settlement. I take on board exactly what the Minister has said about the right of Te Roroa to make their decisions and for the right of Te Roroa alone to decide whether to accept this settlement. I know for a fact that the leader of the negotiators Mr Alex Nathan was not available to provide a submission when the select committee met in Dargaville for various reasons. I would have liked to hear him make his submission in public in order to gain an idea as to how the negotiators felt when dealing with this settlement and in particular how those who represented the Crown felt during the negotiations. 
Having expressed some disquiet about the settlement I want to place on record that New Zealand First will support this bill recognising the tino rangatiratanga of Te Roroa in the decision they have made to settle with the Crown. Kia ora.