Paraone Pita: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Paraone Pita: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18392] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill. But 
  
i mua i te haere tonu o tenei o tatou tunga he wahi poto tenei ki te mihi atu ki a koutou kua tae mai i tena pito i raro o te maunga tapu o Taranaki. Ara koutou o Nga Rauru Kitahi. Koutou i haere mai ki te kite i te whakaurunga mai i te pire ara kia turengia ta koutou kereme whakataunga i raro o te Tiriti o Waitangi. 
[ 
But before continuing I wish to extend a brief greeting to you of Nga Rauru Kitahi who came from that end below the sacred mountain of Taranaki—those of you in particular who came to witness the tabling of the bill that will enable your settlement claim under the Treaty of Waitangi to be passed into law. 
] 
As I said I stand on behalf of New Zealand First which I might add is the only non-aligned political party in this House. I acknowledge the presence in the House today of representatives of Nga Rauru Kitahi and their negotiating team. I have no doubt that it is with a sense of relief and joy that they now witness the introduction of this bill—a bill that will help to provide the foundation for a better future for their iwi members. 
The bill is intended to settle all historical claims of Nga Rauru Kitahi. I remind the House that Nga Rauru Kitahi is just one of eight generally recognised iwi in Taranaki. As with other claims already settled with the Crown claimants are required to have in place an infrastructure that ensures the proper management and administration of the resources they will be responsible for under the settlement they enter into with the Crown in order to ensure that all beneficiaries will be suitably considered in terms of the resources. 
The bill is also intended to be a full and final settlement and to provide full redress for all loss and prejudice. Given the circumstances in which this claim has been made the bill is considered to be fair; yet although we support the intent of the bill we do not feel that this settlement will in fact provide full and final settlement. 
 Like earlier bills of a similar nature it is indeed the intention of this bill to give effect to the deed of settlement entered into by the Crown and Nga Rauru Kitahi dated 27 November 2003. In view of the fact that this Government has failed on a number of occasions to provide when invited to do so a clear and precise definition of “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” New Zealand First has some disquiet about reference to “the principles” in the bill albeit that that be part of the explanatory note. Our concern is that if those words are retained then somewhere down the line without a clear understanding of what “the principles” mean we could be opening ourselves up to further claims. New Zealand First makes that point. I signal to this House that in supporting this bill going to a select committee New Zealand First will vigorously seek the removal of that reference from all parts of the bill albeit that it is in the explanatory note. 
The previous speaker Gerry Brownlee referred to ukaipo sites. He felt that ukaipo was a new word that he had not seen before and that it was creeping into legislation. Just by way of explanation ukaipo sites are those sites considered by the people of Nga Rauru Kitahi to be linked to their poetical maternal origins. Although that might be a new concept for that member for Maori ukaipo sites are very common and very sacred. So I just reassure the member that he should not be fearful of that expression. 
Secondly the previous speaker also referred to the handing over of a beach site and said that he thought it may be in contradiction to the intent of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. My understanding of the Foreshore and Seabed Act is that it covers only the wet part of the beach. I do not believe that it would honour the spirit in which Nga Rauru Kitahi have accepted this settlement just to give them a beach they can enjoy only when the tide is out. I just remind the member of that. 
My other concern is about some of the terms in the bill. The bill suggests that a number of local bodies should give due regard to the views of Nga Rauru Kitahi. Although that is a laudable point to include the bill does not state that those local bodies are obliged to take on board the concerns and advice they receive through consultation with Nga Rauru Kitahi. 
New Zealand First has a number of issues with the bill. However we would prefer to discuss them during the select committee process because I think they could be easily explained then. So without further ado New Zealand First supports the motion to send this bill to the select committee.