Paraone Pita: Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4937] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe e te Heamana. I mua i te haere tonu o tenei tu e mihi kau ana ki a koutou Ngati Ruanui na te mea ko tenei te wa tuatahi e tu ana au i roto i tenei kaupapa. Na reira koia nei te take e mihi atu ki a koutou. He mihi hoki ki era o nga whanaunga karanga maha i hinga atu a i tenei wa ka hoki te mahara ki Maui Prime. Ko ia tetahi i whaka timata mai i tenei kaupapa. Na reira i te po nei kua puawai. Na reira e mihi kau ana ki a ratou. 
[Greetings to you Mr Chairman. Before I continue special greetings to you Ngati Ruanui because this is the first time I have stood up to speak on this matter. It is the reason I am greeting you now. Greetings also to those relatives and the many callings who have passed away. At this time the mind goes to Maui Prime. He was one of the ones who started this matter. And so tonight it has blossomed. So I acknowledge them particularly.] 
I will keep my comments brief. I have just acknowledged the Ngati Ruanui representatives who are in the gallery tonight and also those who have passed on particularly Maui Prime who was one of the people instrumental in initiating the whole process that has allowed this bill to come to the Committee tonight helping Ngati Ruanui to realise the dreams and aspirations it had when it first lodged its claim. 
However although New Zealand First supports the bill we note in the commentary on the bill that the apology is to Ngati Ruanui only. Previous speakers have made reference to Tangahoe and Pakakohi who are relatives of Ngati Ruanui. Although this bill will certainly go some way towards meeting the claims submitted by Ngati Ruanui I think that the Crown is placing an imposition on the tribe in this legislation and that imposition is to deal with its Tangahoe and Pakakohi relatives. Given the number of representations made during the process that has allowed this bill to get to this stage I believe it is now incumbent on the principals of Ngati Ruanui to deal with their kith and kin within Tangahoe and Pakakohi as part of the settlement process. I want the Committee to realise that that imposition has been placed on Ngati Ruanui as a consequence of this bill. 
Secondly I will comment on the amount of $41 million. I suppose that if one says it quickly enough it does sound like a lot of money—and it is. However I am not quite sure whether that amount will provide the settlement that Ngati Ruanui and its various hapu deserve given the suffering they have had to bear as has been evidenced by history. I wonder whether the Crown has sold Ngati Ruanui short. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. I do not really wish to interrupt the speaker but someone has a phone on. Could that person turn it off? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I heard a cellphone. There have been several instances of cellphones ringing in this Chamber and that practice is totally unacceptable. It is discourteous to members who are speaking and it is also an affront to the business of the House and to the Speaker. It is not necessary. The practice in select committees is for the offender to provide all members with morning tea and if the use of cellphones were to become the practice here the member concerned would certainly incur a hefty fine. Cellphones when switched on are not permitted in this Chamber. I will leave it at that. 
PITA PARAONE 
: Perhaps the phone that was ringing belonged to one of the departed members of Ngati Ruanui who was calling to say that what I am saying is right and that I should bid for more than $41 million. Although I say that in jest I am serious about the concern I have about the amount of the settlement. I am a little disappointed that the Government member representing Ngati Ruanui has not raised that issue. 
After looking at the number of objections that were made during the process that has brought the bill to this stage I wonder whether the Crown is leaving itself open to further litigation and therefore to further claims by the Tangahoe and Pakakohi hapu. They feel that a further breach of the treaty will occur if they are included in the bill under the collective definition of Ngati Ruanui. I just caution this Committee that although we may be settling one grievance we may be establishing another. I reiterate that the imposition we have placed on Ngati Ruanui may come back to haunt us.