Paraone Pita: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Paraone Pita: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18822] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I just want to add that even if we were to accept the list of hapu I must ask this question. The regulations to which the Minister of Maori Affairs referred me list the following hapu: Patuwai Te Rangihouhiri Te Tawera-Umutahi Pahipoto Ngati Tamawera and Ngati Awa ki Tamaki. The question I ask of this Committee is where those particular hapu from those regulations are listed in this bill. 
I also point out that reference is made in the bill to Te Rangihouhiri II. What happened to Te Rangihouhiri I? While some of my colleagues might think I say that in jest we are talking about legislation and once it is set in concrete the people who belonged to Te Rangihouhiri I may feel they have been alienated from this bill. The other question I ask along those lines is that the 1985 regulations refer to Te Tawera-Umutahi but we notice that in this bill Umutahi is not mentioned. Further this bill has a new hapu called Te Kahupake. I am not for one moment questioning the existence of Te Kahupake but I believe that there needs to be some consistency. If we are going to refer to earlier legislation we have to ask where Te Kahupake came from. 
I reiterate the point that I am not in any way questioning the desire of Ngati Awa to address provision of a structure that will deliver to all of their beneficiaries. What I do ask is whether it is correct and proper that this Parliament should be asked to set in legislation a list of hapu that will set a—should I say—precedent for this Parliament to give legislative recognition to other hapu and dare I say it other iwi in future. I just wanted to say that in respect of those hapu. 
Again in talking to Supplementary Order Paper 328 which was submitted by New Zealand First I refer to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Mention was made by the Minister in the chair that reference to the principles was first mentioned in the Treaty of Waitangi Act of 1975. That suggested to me and it has proven to be the case that the task the responsibility of defining those words has been left to people outside of this Parliament. I believe that if we in this Parliament enact any legislation we are the correct body to define what is meant in that legislation. New Zealand First asks that that reference be deleted from the bill because of the vagueness of the words. I am not for one moment questioning the integrity of Ngati Awa or its negotiation team but none of us in this Parliament at this time can be assured that this matter of settlement may not be revisited because of the lack of definition and clarity of those words. 
That term is very vague and has been included in legislation since 1986. Almost 30 pieces of legislation have those words included. One would think that those who did the deed of including those words in legislation would have ensured that there was a clear definition. But no who has been left with the responsibility of defining them? The task has fallen to others outside of this Parliament who have taken an increasingly activist liberal and broad-licence approach. Despite the passage of almost 20 years the words that I seek to have removed from this bill remain largely undefined and ambiguous. Because of that those words have become a source of ongoing litigation regarding their relevance and meaning. Those who have substantially benefited from that are those associated with the legal process. Those words are without a clear tangible benefit for New Zealanders.