Mark Ron: Third Readings 
Mark Ron: Third Readings 
[Volume:636;Page:7027] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First in the third readings of the bills from the Maori Purposes Bill. I rise to deliver a speech—and I hope I do so faithfully—on behalf of my colleague Pita Paraone. 
The Maori Purposes Bill was duly considered by the Maori Affairs Committee and it proposed amendments to the following Acts: 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. 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 setting a closing date for the lodgment and submission of historical Treaty claims to the Waitangi Tribunal. 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. Of course the date the legislation has identified as the closing date for the submission of historical claims is 1 September 2008. 
The setting of a time frame by which claims should be lodged is something we in New Zealand First support. In fact it is the policy of our party notwithstanding that some other parties claim a similar policy. Indeed as we now know through the publication of that great exposé entitled  
The Hollow Men 
 we now have proof of what we knew all along—and what some National members have privately confessed—that the National Party had simply been plagiarising New Zealand First policy manifestoes. As the old warhorse Murray McCully said one day half in jest half in sincerity National was simply conducting its research off the New Zealand First website in preparation for the forthcoming election. It is all history now. Don Brash has done his dash and we are moving on. 
It is important for those wishing to make claims to know that this amendment is about the lodgment of claims only. It is not about when claims will be settled or about applications needing to be fully researched before their lodgment—and I recall Pita Paraone making that point during the Committee stage. It is about the closing date for claims being lodged not for their settlement. New Zealand First would be concerned if the date were the date for claims to be settled by as it would raise the issue of whether there is bureaucratic capacity to handle that. Just as important it could affect the durability of the settlement not least the quality of the settlement and I want to make that point very very clear. 
What is a historical claim? This legislation defines that as one that relates to events that occurred prior to 21 September 1992—the date on which the then National Government decided the principles to be used for the settling of historical claims. Of course the principles referred to should not be confused with those principles that New Zealand First members have sought to have deleted from legislation by way of a member’s bill sponsored by our colleague Doug Woolerton. 
During the Committee stage it was proposed by the Greens that the date of 21 September 1992 be altered to 1 January 1841. Of course that was their attempt to nullify the intent of the bill. I do not question the Greens’ sincerity as to why they oppose the 1992 date or why they want that other date to be inserted—we just have a differing view. 
We also heard from the Maori Party in the course of this debate. As an argument not to support this legislation Maori members in the House were asked to indicate whether they thought our tupuna who had signed the Treaty would have done so if they had known there would be a cut-off date for the lodging of claims. I recall that speech—I heard it on the radio. Members were asked to put up their hands if they agreed. There are a couple of simple points. Firstly—I ask members to forgive me—the Treaty that our tupuna were asked to sign was not about claims. Let me go one step further than the notes that my honourable colleague has written here. At the time the Treaty was signed there were no breaches for the Treaty had not been signed—let alone there not having been the opportunity to breach it. Secondly there were no protocols or procedures by which people could have lodged a claim against a breach. So the questions put in debate were spurious and nonsensical. 
New Zealand First has the view that support for this part of the legislation will allow us as a nation—and that includes Maori—to move forward as a nation with more certainty than we would have without this legislation. It will also allow our descendants not to be locked into a time warp that sees them forever in grievance mode as some members in this House would have them be. Indeed we suspect some members in this House want that grievance mode to remain because it gives them a reason to continue to be here. 
Similarly we in New Zealand First recognise the need for the appointment of more judges for the Maori Land Court in order to deal with in a more timely fashion the extra work that recent legislation will bring to bear on the court. We have always said that—Winston Peters has always said that. We will therefore support this provision as well. Similarly we support the Chief Judge in the Maori Land Court having the authority to delegate his or her existing power function or duty to the Deputy Chief Judge. In November 2000 the then Deputy Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court operated after his warrant had expired. This legislation seeks to validate court orders made by that learned judge and it is an eminently sensible thing to do given the situation we are now faced with. 
Although approximately 80 different orders were involved we in New Zealand First do not subscribe to the notion that those affected by those orders have had their rights to justice interfered with as alleged by some who oppose the legislation. Our support is founded on the advice that the validation of these orders will not affect the ability of parties to make an application under the principal Act if a mistake or omission is found or thought to have been found and on the knowledge that had there been concern at the time of making these orders the affected parties held the ability to seek a rehearing and/or appeal of the decision at the time. 
My colleague Pita Paraone notes that amendments to the Maori Fisheries Act 2004 and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004 will help give true intent to these original settlements by the alteration of quota management areas and will reclassify red crab stocks. 
I conclude by adding to the comments of my colleague who sat on the select committee. There are varying comments and differing views on this legislation; that is clear. We all stand here as members of Parliament for our respective parties which are built and based on differing philosophies differing views differing policies and differing ideologies to support those people who vote for us. We are different. We have different views. Of the speeches I heard I commend my whanaunga MetiriaTurei and the Greens for their views that they have expressed eloquently. We simply differ in our opinions. I commend them for the honesty and sincerity of the arguments they have put forward. 
I add to my colleague’s comments by saying that we in New Zealand First sincerely believe that we need to give the nation the security of knowing when claim lodgments will come to an end. We look forward to the day when we as a nation start looking forward rather than looking in our rear-view mirror at our history. We must never forget our history and we must learn from it but we must not live there we must not dwell there for that above all will retard our progress forward.