Paraone Pita: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18917] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker tena tatou o te Whare nei. Engari i mua i te haere tonu o enei o aku korero hiahia ana au kia mihi ki a koutou nga iwi nga hapu o Te Arawa. Koutou tena pea e matakitaki mai e are taringa mai hoki ki enei korero i puta mai i te Whare i te po nei. Na reira tena koutou. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker and to us of this House. But before I continue with my address I want to acknowledge the people and subtribes of Te Arawa as well those of you who might be listening in or watching these proceedings in the House tonight. So greetings to you. 
] 
I acknowledge the Te Arawa iwi and hapu who may be watching or listening to this debate on their bill the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. I am pleased to stand in this debate on behalf of New Zealand First to support much of the sentiment that has been expressed already. 
Of course we all know that this bill follows many years of groundwork and several months of intensive negotiations between the negotiators Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa and its team and representatives of the Crown. To that extent I acknowledge the team that made up Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa. It was led by Rawiri Te Whare of Ngati Tahu and Ngati Whaoa and included Henry Colbert of Ngati Ngararanui Ruka Hughes of Ngati Rongomai and Brian Barge of Ngati Kearoa Ngati Tuara. I think it is to their credit that having taken up the cudgels from the group known as Nga Kaihautu o Te Arawa under the chairmanship of Eru George they have got to the stage where we are now debating the second reading of this bill. 
The bill has returned to the House after the Maori Affairs Committee of which I was a member received and heard submissions on it. I was very proud to be part of the committee that considered the bill. It affects approximately 24000 members of the affiliate. It follows the process of combining several claims so that they can be dealt with as one group. I ought to say that there has been a long gestation period for this bill but we are now in what we might consider to be the last lap of the race. 
I want to quote something that is attributed to Mr Te Whare of Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa: “There is nothing just about a settlement. It is just a settlement.” I think that quote aptly describes not only this settlement but all the settlements that have preceded it. As much as we want to compensate the affected parties to the maximum extent there will always be some concern about how fair and how just the final settlement is. Bearing that in mind Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa with the authority given it by its beneficiaries approved the settlement that is now being considered by this House. 
I want to make reference to two things. The first is the issue regarding Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao. The committee received some submissions stating that they would like to see the separation of Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao into two entities and they merely asked that the word “and” should be included. I suppose it is not very often that I agree with my relative who spoke just before me the Hon Tau Henare but I think in this regard he was quite right: this is not a matter for the Crown. This issue is based on tikanga it is based on history and therefore it should be left to tikanga and the future to decide whether those two tribes should be identified separately. I know that even today outside of this whole process in the kapahaka competitions that Te Arawa ran recently to identify which kapahaka group would represent their region at the forthcoming Te Matatini kapahaka competitions one of the teams that participated was known as Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao. 
I took the opportunity during the hearing process to raise this issue with one of the elders from Tuhourangi and he was quite clear in his response to my question. He said that Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao were essentially one group. He was actually saying that by virtue of whakapapa they are quite closely intertwined. I do not believe that it is for this House or for anyone outside of Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao to determine whether they should be separated into two separate entities. I can understand the concerns that those submitters raised about this issue but as much as I might sympathise with their concerns I do not believe that it is an issue for this House or for the Crown to determine. I am also mindful of the fact that when the House dealt with the Ngati Awa settlement bill New Zealand First opposed the stand taken by this House in giving due recognition to what we referred to as a new iwi grouping. New Zealand First continues to maintain that stance. 
The other point I want to make is regarding Ruamata Marae and its claim to the tribunal with regard to airspace. I ought to say that I mistakenly took its claim that is identified in the bill to be a claim about airspace. I was informed by representatives of the marae that that was not the case. I am glad to see that the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has proposed an amendment that will reassure the marae that it can make a claim in regard to airspace. 
In conclusion I reaffirm New Zealand First’s support for the second reading of this bill. Kia ora.