Paraone Pita: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Paraone Pita: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18820] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to talk to clauses 13 and 14 in Part 2. New Zealand First has put forward amendments to these clauses in Supplementary Order Paper 328. The first issue concerns subparagraphs (xx) and (xxi) in paragraph (a) under the definition of “hapu of Ngati Awa” in clause 13(3) which refer to “Ngati Awa ki Tamaki Makaurau” and “Ngati Awa ki Poneke”. New Zealand First believes that the inclusion of these two entities as hapu for the purposes of this bill is actually outside the traditional concept of what establishes or creates a hapu. It is well known that the social structure of Maori is made up of whanau. A collection of whanau make up a hapu and a collection of hapu go on to make up an iwi. In the case of these two hapu we are advised that their members descend both from other hapu that are listed in the bill and from the iwi ancestor of Ngati Awa. Essentially this Parliament is being asked to include them in this bill to ensure that those of Ngati Awa living in Tamaki Makaurau and Poneke are assured access to the benefits that this settlement will bring to Ngati Awa. 
During the course of hearing the submissions on this bill one submitter pointed out that every member registered to these two hapu held whakapapa links back to his or her traditional hapu within the Ngati Awa tribal area in the same way as other Ngati Awa descendants who are resident elsewhere in the world. Notwithstanding the rationale for including these two hapu in the bill it is important to remember that their inclusion in this bill will create new hapu. That creation can only be regarded as one of expediency and convenience. 
Should Parliament be vested with the authority to create new hapu? What of other Ngati Awa descendants living elsewhere? As the ACT member quite rightly pointed out why should they be expected to connect with their hapu at home while those living in Tamaki Makaurau and Poneke have the convenience and even the choice to connect with either hapu back home? 
New Zealand First acknowledges the intent of Ngati Awa to have a governance structure that ensures that their people are easily able to access the benefits of their settlement with the Crown. We do not believe that what is proposed to address this is a matter for this House. We further believe that including these two groups in this bill will actually question or put to the test the intent of this bill which is that this settlement is an enduring one. 
Of further concern we believe that to legislate for the creation of hapu as proposed will pose the question some time in the future: why was this allowed to happen with so many Maori MPs in Parliament at the time? Is it not strange that here we are deliberating on a very important treaty settlement by a very well-known and acknowledged iwi of this nation and there are no Maori members in the Government who are inside this Chamber. 
Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is contrary to the Standing Orders for members to refer to the presence or absence of members. Clearly if one includes a whole group of members for example saying that the Maori members of the Labour Party are not here that casts aspersions on what all those members are doing particularly at a time when the Hui Taumata is on which the Government is saying clearly shows the successes of the Government in relation to Maori. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just refer members please to Speakers’ ruling 23/7. It is out of order to refer to the absence of members from the Chamber. It is a reality that all members of the House at some stage or other have to take leave from the Chamber to attend select committees and caucus committees and for other natural reasons. 
PITA PARAONE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am just seeking some clarification. Are you then saying that my comment is out of order? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes. 
PITA PARAONE 
: It is very good to see that— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already ruled on the matter—Speaker’s ruling 23/7. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: The member is not referring to an individual member. He is referring collectively to members of the Labour caucus who are not here. There is nothing wrong in doing that. He did not name any Maori Labour member who was not here he just said that Labour Maori members were not here. That is a collective approach and that is in my understanding not out of order. The member is right in being able to acknowledge that point. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say that the members can talk about not participating in a debate but to go outside of that actually can lead to disorder and what I am trying to do as Chairman is to ensure that order is maintained in the Chamber. I think the member has recognised that and I invite him to continue his speech. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I tell Dr Mapp that I have ruled. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I understand that you have ruled by reference to Speaker’s ruling 23/7 which states: “It is a convention that we do not make reference to the fact that a member is away or is not in the member’s seat.” Now I believe that that really refers to the singular—an identifiable person. To cover the interpretation you have just given would require that Speaker’s ruling to refer to “a member or members”. It does not have those additional words “or members”. I believe that it is actually a reasonable reference and within the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings to make reference to a generic group without identifying any one individual. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I tell members that it is a longstanding convention in this Chamber that members should not refer to the absence from the Chamber of other members. But that does not stop them from criticising members for failing to vote for failing to answer questions or failing to take part in a debate. Again I would refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 23/7. 
PITA PARAONE 
: I ask this question of members on the other side of the Chamber who have previously expressed a great interest in this bill: why are they not able to support this Supplementary Order Paper and stand up and explain to this Committee the issue regarding hapu and how this Parliament and therefore the Crown is given the authority to establish new hapu? 
The Minister of Maori Affairs expressed reluctance to support the Supplementary Order Paper because he was advised that these hapu are already listed in the Maori Trust Boards Regulations of 1985 and is therefore reluctant to become involved in changing how Ngati Awa is structured. I have looked at those regulations and there is no mention of the word “hapu”. What is referred to is “specific section or division” not the word “hapu”. I am advised that in the preamble to the legislation reference is made to “hapu”. But the point is that in the substance of that legislation—