Paraone Pita: Maori Purposes Bill — Second Reading 
Paraone Pita: Maori Purposes Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:6890] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 A tenaano koe e te Kaiwhakawa. E tikaana ki te whakakokuhutiaahauteneiwairiro ki a au me tokuropumoteneipire moanawahangatuaruaimuai te Whare neii roto iwatatou reo rangatira na te mea he piremonga take Maori. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you Madam Speaker. It is apt that I begin my contribution and that of my party in our chiefly language for this bill in its second reading before the House because it is a Maori Purposes Bill. 
] 
As has been mentioned by previous speakers the Maori Purposes Bill is an omnibus bill that has been duly considered by the Maori Affairs Committee. The bill proposes a number of amendments to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 the Maori Fisheries Act 2004 Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004. I commend the Minister Parekura Horomia for at least having a Maori Purposes Bill this year. This might be the second bill of this nature to come before the House in the short time that I have been in it. I am somewhat surprised about that fact given the number of social issues—not least economic issues—confronting Maori. Of course legislation is required to assist Maori in their development in these areas. 
In terms of the amendment to the Treaty of Waitangi Act as proposed by this bill I say that a number of submissions were made by members of the public many of whom expressed their opposition to the amendment to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 which sets a closing date for the lodgment or submission of historical Treaty claims to the Waitangi Tribunal. Of course some submitters expressed concern that there had not been an opportunity for consultation with iwi and hapu about this matter and others submitted that there be no closing date. The setting of a time frame by which claims should be lodged is something that we in New Zealand First support; in fact it is a policy of our party. It is important for those wishing to make claims that this proposed amendment is about the lodgment of claims only not about when claims will be settled or about the fact that applications need to be fully researched before their lodgment. I suggest that a number of the submitters who were concerned about this closure expressed that concern in the belief that they needed to have their application and research completed in order to have their claim considered. 
But we also need to make reference to what a historical claim is. This bill defines a historical claim as something that relates to events that have occurred prior to 21 September 1992—the date on which the then Government decided what principles would be used for the settling of historical claims. That is not to say that claimants cannot amend their applications; it does give them the opportunity to do so should they find as a consequence of further research that they need to include that in their original claim. 
As the previous speaker Jim Anderton has outlined the proposed amendments to the Maori Fisheries Act address a number of issues. We in New Zealand First have no problem with that because it gives effect to the true intent of that particular Act but it highlights for some of us—particularly those in New Zealand First—the haste in which the original Act was put together. We accept that the amendment would allow Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd when allocating quota to iwi to take into account changes to the quota shares it holds resulting from alterations to quota management areas under section 25 of the Fisheries Act 1996. It also allows for the reclassification of red crab stocks and clause 23 of the bill will provide that. The bill also allows for the validation of allocation by Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and that is covered in clause 25. There was without exception support from submitters in relation to this particular amendment and the report from the Maori Affairs Committee which dealt with the bill recognises that. 
The Minister made reference to other amendments particularly Te Ture Whenua Maori Act to clarify that a judge may determine an application relating to a dispute under the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act. We in New Zealand First have no difficulty with that; in fact it highlights the need for a further amendment in relation to the ability of the Minister to increase the number of Maori Land Court judges if required. This reflects the added work that the Maori Land Court will need to consider when claims to the seabed foreshore and other issues arising from successful Treaty settlement claims arise. It does also allow for the fact that this legislation provides a close-off date for Treaty claims and gives some credence to the need therefore to have the necessary personnel in place to consider the work that will come out of this. 
The other point I want to refer to is the issue relating to the validation of decisions made by the then Deputy Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court Judge Norman Smith. We do not question the integrity of that particular judge but rather the fact that the House is being asked to validate the decisions he made during I think the month of November 2002 and to ensure that the orders made by his court are indeed orders of the court. I point out that in considering this application some of us had concerns about the introduction of retrospective legislation to validate these orders. Our concerns really were about whether those families and hapu—and in fact iwi—affected by this issue were aware of it. The speaker from National did indicate some concern about whether those who were affected by the orders made by the court at that time knew of their ability to appeal the decisions or to express some concern or whether they had even been notified about this legislation. I am assured by the officials that although this may have caused some logistical problems they did not perceive there being any difficulty with passing legislation that would validate those orders. 
I signal that in relation to the increase in the number of Maori Land Court judges I propose to have my member’s bill which has been drawn from the ballot considered as a Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee stage. Without further ado I again confirm that New Zealand First will support this bill.