Paraone Pita: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21862] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I make this contribution on behalf of New Zealand First. Essentially we are talking about what the Minister in the chair Mita Ririnui referred to as “a very minor part” but I think that its importance is much greater than the import the Minister might put on it. 
The preamble provides a background. If we are to talk about the issue which Mr Mapp referred to that it did not quite catch the facts of the matter—firstly I would suggest that the preamble would be much bigger than the rest of the bill and secondly it would also provide a much more detailed picture that might come back to embarrass not only the Crown but the claimants as well. While those are insufficient reasons not to have the preamble included as it stands now it does cover the more important issues. 
The member from ACT made an allusion to Sherman’s attack being revisited as if that is what we are doing in this whole process. I remind him that the tangata whenua the subject of that attack did not have the luxury of a treaty but I believe that his allusion does highlight the whole difficulty as I see it in terms of the process. Comments made from this side of the Chamber do have some validity. However we are denied the opportunity to contribute to that part of the process because by the time the bill comes to this House and goes to a select committee much of that part of the work on the claim has been done. 
If people want to start questioning the contents of what eventually ends up in the preamble then they need to be part of that process. But having said that I think that those who negotiate on the part of the Crown have been signalled the concern that this side of the Chamber has about the whole process. The Government may wish to consider those thoughts with dealing with future claims. 
The member Mr Mapp referred to the aggrievedness of particular parties. I say that Maori certainly felt aggrieved and we need to look at that aggrievement in the context of those times. If my recollection of that part of New Zealand history is correct then in respect of the attack at Parihaka only one party really adopted what one might regard as a “going to war” stance. So if the preamble as set out does any injustice it does so to the claimant group because the preamble does not quite identify the true intent of those who initiated the attack nor does it give a true picture of the effect the attack had on the people of Nga Rauru Kitahi. 
It is also said that we need to be honest but I say that honesty in this case may prove to be of some embarrassment to the Crown. In a way the preamble protects both parties and the protection is not just on one side of the ledger. The preamble provides a good outline of the situation the claimant group endured at the time and the course of action taken by the Crown and it reflects the Crown’s acknowledgment to the claimant group. 
I want to comment on the Maori text and although I take on board what the Minister had to say I am conscious that during the debate on the last settlement bill before the House when I called for an accurate—in my view—amendment of the English text into Maori he responded that it was just a matter of semantics. So I remind the Minister that we need to exercise some consistency because I have always maintained the view that the use of te reo text will provide a learning instrument for those learning the language in the future.