Borrows Chester: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Borrows Chester: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5360] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I have a number of concerns in respect of this bill. The main concern is around mandate. Mandate is something that has been raised consistently throughout discussion on this bill and it is an issue that should be addressed. The need for a robust mandating process is so that in the future things cannot be resurrected or do not explode again. There is a saying about burying things dead and burying things alive. When we bury things alive they fester away and come back to bite us. In Taranaki for instance we deal with a thorny issue quite often. It is called a boxthorn hedge. When people get pricked by a boxthorn hedge they have to dig out the prickle and deal with it then and there. If they do not it lies dormant under the surface of the skin for some time and they think the whole problem has gone away then one day it explodes and there is pus and mess all over the place to be dealt with. The problem with the lack of a robust mandating process in respect of this issue is that when it explodes again it will be Maori who cop the flak for the lack of will to deal properly with this process. 
We have heard from other speakers in the Chamber today about those who are unhappy with some of the resolutions that have come out of this. One of them particularly is Ngati Whaoa’s claim on Lake Opouri. That claim is currently on the table. It has not been dealt with. It deals with part of the settlement of this proposal and is one that is bound to come back. It is interesting to note the history of the Government’s lack of listening to Maori on this issue. We heard my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell talk earlier about the 1922 process. It was interesting and I think quite ironic that even the first time this matter was raised in this sitting last week we witnessed the situation where strings were being pulled and process was being abrogated to try to drag this out because it did not suit the Government to debate it at the correct time as laid down on the Order Paper. Even then it was being dragged out. Things have been jiggery-poked around to try to have them the Government’s way. 
I find New Zealand First’s response to this quite amazing. Its members have said and it was said earlier by my colleague Pita Paraone that they disagree with a big chunk of the bill but they will vote for it tonight on the basis that if New Zealand First is successful with another piece of legislation it will pull this legislation to bits again. Where is the credibility in that? Where is the integrity in a system that allows that to happen? I find that incredibly difficult to understand. Another thing that I find difficult to understand is the response of the Minister Mark Burton when asked some difficult questions again by the honourable member Te Ururoa Flavell. In my paraphrased version he came out with: “Well who the hell are you?”. 
The fact is that when we have a close look at the separation of powers—and this is something I spent some time on a little while ago—we see that Parliament is at the top of the pyramid and the executive comes under that. So who the hell are we? We are the people who get to ask what the hell is going on. There is nothing wrong with holding a system to account. In fact that is what we are here for; that is why we are elected to be in this House—to ask those questions. If members do not like the question then they should not slag off the person asking the question. They should give a considered response that will not see in years to come Maori being able to put up their hand again and say that they were not happy with this process that they flagged that several times during the formulation of the settlement process that they raised it time and time again and that it was raised in the House. The punishment for their doing that is to be branded by the rednecks as never being happy and the issue is called a Maori issue as opposed to a New Zealand issue a governance issue a settlement issue or the process of trying to move forward as one nation. 
I ask New Zealand First to have a look at where it is coming from in relation to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The stance those members have taken appears to be inconsistent. There seems to be a weird sort of response to some of these questions; it seems when their leader is out of the country they do not know exactly how they are voting on any particular issue at any one time.