Paraone Pita: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5359] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I commence talking to this part of the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill by making reference to the area of definitions. I specifically refer to the “Cultural Redress Schedule” and say that I think the definition there is quite clear. What is not there and what I would have thought might have been included—and is something that could be considered for future settlement bills—is the definition itself of cultural redress in that clause covering definitions. Although some of us know that cultural redress means the recognition of traditional historical cultural and spiritual association I think it might have been helpful to include that definition in the legislation. 
I refer now to clause 13 and in particular to subclause (1)(a)(i) where reference after the mention of “settlement date” is made to the fact that the claim “is founded on a right arising—(A) from te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi) or its principles;”. I want to say straight off that New Zealand First supports the process and it supports the outcome therefore we will support the legislation. However I want to respond to the comment made by Mr Finlayson on behalf of his party. Of course New Zealand First is disappointed that this reference to those ill-defined principles—in fact undefined principles—is included. New Zealand First says that our bill referring to the deletion of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi when passed will now have to include this legislation. I just wanted to make that point and although it might seem that members within New Zealand First are at odds with one another I tell members we are clearly not; we are just disappointed that references to those principles are included in this legislation. It is just another bill that will be affected by our deletion bill when it becomes law. 
In relation to Supplementary Order Paper 57 proposed by the Maori Party member Te Ururoa Flavell I focus on clause 11 and the definition of “Crown stratum”. His Supplementary Order Paper suggests that the entire definition should be omitted. The effect of that would be that the Crown would retain no ownership interest in the lakes but I think the bill’s whole purpose is to vest just the lake bed and all those attachments—other than the water and the air above the lake bed—in iwi and to leave what has been described as the Crown stratum to the Crown which will hold it of course on behalf of all New Zealanders. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: What about the trout? Who’s the trout going to be vested in? 
PITA PARAONE 
: Ha ha! The Supplementary Order Paper also refers to the “Te Arawa Lakebed” in clause 11 and again the provision suggests that the paragraph referred to should be excluded. But if we did that the Crown stratum would be excluded from the definition. Of course this settlement bill is about the ownership of the lake bed being transferred to Te Arawa and it is important that that is defined including the air space and water column commonly known as the Crown stratum. 
The Supplementary Order Paper also seeks to add a new clause to exclude a claim relating to Lakes Ngahewa Ngapouri and Tutaeinanga. In the Maori Affairs Committee we looked at the claim by Ngati Whaoa in terms of Lake Ngapouri and we were advised by officials that although it was correct that all the land around the lake had been sold to the tribe the sale did not include the actual lake or lake bed. So on that advice we in New Zealand First are quite happy to support the ongoing process related to this bill. 
Again the Supplementary Order Paper suggests that clause 15 which provides for full and final settlement should be omitted. It is not the first time that I have heard the member say that settlements are not full and final. In fact I think it has been suggested by the member that the affected iwi hapu and whanau should consider re-claiming or putting in a further claim. Look if that is what we want for the generations to follow then that is what we will get. So I suggest that the member might want to reconsider that position. The other thing is that although he might not want to reconsider the proof of the pudding will come when we actually vote on this bill—and I say that abstention is not good enough. Members are either against the bill or not. I make that comment in reference to how people will vote. Kia ora.