Paraone Pita: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:636;Page:6975] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Listening to the last speaker I despair. If things are as bad as that then I can understand why people want special privileges for a certain sector of our country. To describe New Zealand First and me as overt racists because we support Part 2 of the Maori Purposes Bill is I think scraping the bottom of the barrel. I am quite clear in my mind and I say this on behalf of our party that this country needs to go forward and look in anticipation to what the future holds for us. The provisions of Part 2 are a big step towards achieving that very goal. 
I am very fortunate that one of my parents is still alive. He is 90 years old and he knows the history of his people. Yet every day he exhorts his children and those of his brothers and sisters to look forward and not go back to the ills of the past. I suggest to the Committee that Part 2 goes a long way towards addressing the very wish that people like my father have for this country and the path they would like it to go down. 
The previous speaker said that if we adhered to the suggestion of enforcing a closure date of 2008 that would be justice denied because a lot of people would not have the opportunity to provide the history on which they would base their claims. Perhaps the reason why my father is still alive is that he wants to look forward. That is point No. 1. Point No. 2 is this. After listening to the speeches of members of some parties in this House I would suggest that Maori already have a good knowledge of the so-called ills they have had to endure. To me 2008 is a real compromise; my party suggested that the closing-off date should be 2010. 
Part of the reason for the concern that came through from many submitters was I believe that they misunderstood the intent of Part 2. They thought that all their applications needed to be in order before lodging their claims. I repeat that this part of the bill concerns only the lodgment of claims. People still have the opportunity to do the necessary research required to complete their full claims. I would be very concerned if 2008 was the date on which all claims were to be settled because then there would be the argument that claims were being dealt with just to meet the expediency of the bureaucracy. It is not the first time I have made that comment in this House. 
Part 2 is specifically designed to give some certainty to Maori—quite rightly as expressed by the previous speaker—certainty to the Crown but more important certainty to this country. There is no way I want to leave a legacy for my grandchildren that means they will have to continue this battle when we could have addressed the issue and provided a much easier path for them to face. Any notion of moving the closing-off date in terms of historical claims back to 1 January 1841 is just a covert way of circumventing this part of the bill. In fact I suggest that it is a rather cynical approach. Instead of Green members just saying they oppose Part 2 they have submitted amendments in order to avoid having to admit that. 
I will not make an issue of who is responsible for there being a closing-off date but suffice it to say that setting a date is in the best interests of this country. If we are to go ahead like we want to then this is the sort of legislation we need to put into action. It is no good saying that this was not something the Office of Treaty Settlements asked for—of course it is not going to ask for it. That office is the servant of this Government irrespective of which party is part of the Government and it does what is required of it in terms of the policy that the Government sets for it. 
If we want to criticise the Office of Treaty Settlements then we have to criticise the policy. I say that as one who came from a long term of service as a public servant and I know full well that although public servants may not like certain policies they are required to carry them out. If they do not do so then they have to leave. After working for 39 years in the public service I say there must be something good about it. Sometimes I feel for the officials who come before select committees but that does not deter from the intent and the quality of this part of the bill. On behalf of New Zealand First I say that it is our pleasure to support the intent of Part 2.