Paraone Pita: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Paraone Pita: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:18945. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to take a call in the second reading of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill. The Maori Affairs Committee heard submissions on this bill and I was a member of the committee. This will be one of the few times I give some self-praise because I think the way in which the committee handled the various views on this bill would have given all the submitters a sense of satisfaction that they had received a fair hearing. 
One of the observations I made during that whole process however was that I was mindful of the oft-stated phrase used to advertise State of Origin rugby league matches in Australia: “state against state mate against mate”. Well in the case of this bill—and I am not wanting to be derisive about the whole process—the sad part for me during the hearing process was to see whanau against whanau elder brother or elder sister against younger brother or younger sister. Although I sympathise with the views of both parties I think when we have settlements affecting land and in particular mana whenua then certainly we will see more of that kind of division. That is the challenge that awaits the leadership involved in this settlement. 
Having said that I acknowledge the real leadership that was exercised by those who represented their respective iwi at the negotiating table. I think some of the decisions they made showed true leadership. One of those decisions was a preparedness to give up a percentage of what was already agreed to to allow another iwi to have a bigger slice of the cake so to speak. I want to acknowledge that sort of leadership. 
There are a number of issues that are worth making mention of and in particular the issue of mana whenua. Although this bill is essentially in the first instance about the allocation of rental funds held by the Crown Forestry Rental Forestry Trust the fear of many of those who had some resistance to the bill was that it might set a benchmark in terms of the exercise of mana whenua. As I say that will be a real challenge for those involved. I will give members an example. Part of this settlement is known as the Taurewa Forest. One hapu made private submissions to me to say that in their view and not only in their view but also by virtue of their tikanga they felt that that part of the settlement should be allocated to them. That is an issue that will have to be dealt with by the leadership. 
The other point I will make with regard to the issue of mana whenua is that we received several submissions both written and in person from a particular submitter all emphasising the fact that in terms of history and his tribe’s tikanga his particular tribe owned a majority of the land that this settlement is about. His real fear was that if this bill was to go through in its present form then the percentages that were used for the allocation of Crown Forestry Rental Trust funds and future rentals would determine how the land would eventually be distributed amongst the claimants. His concern was such that he has an application with the Maori Land Court and I understand that he wanted an urgent hearing with the Waitangi Tribunal. But at the end of the day we have to take into consideration the fact that the negotiators who may not have had a 100 percent mandate but certainly had a majority mandate have made the decision. They have made the decision on behalf of their iwi. Who are we to amend that decision? Any amendment would take the whole process back to square one and we all know that for this particular settlement the negotiators have had to travel a very long and rocky path to get to the point where we are at the moment. 
I will also make reference to Ngati Rangitihi who were at the table very early in the piece but as part of the mandate process quite clearly did not have the support of their people to accept the settlement. Whatever the argument might be as to why they did not get their support I think it is to the credit of those who have negotiated this settlement that they have allowed an opportunity for Ngati Rangitihi to get the required mandate. I understand that postal voting closes on 6 October—I am not quite sure about the date but it is very soon. Those people have until Christmas Eve 2008 to indicate whether they have the required support and I think it is to the credit of the negotiators of this settlement that they have allowed that to happen. 
Suffice it to say New Zealand First supports the second reading of this bill. Kia ora.