Māori Purposes Bill

In respect of Part 4 I would like to raise a generic issue about the settlement of claims, whether relating to aquaculture or otherwise, and I would like to raise a point that was brought up with me by one of my whanaunga from Te Tai Tokerau, where many wise people come from. He said to me that one of the reasons we should be opposing the Treaty claims settlement process, be it in relation to aquaculture or otherwise, is that—

💬 Hon David Benson-Pope: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise for interrupting the member, but can you clarify for the benefit of the Committee the position concerning a member who is speaking from a chair other than one allocated to the party he belongs to. Is that appropriate, even in the Committee stage?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The member should be speaking from his own chair, please. We will give him plenty of time to get over there.

I thank Mr Benson-Pope for his assistance. I just wanted to point out an issue that was raised with me in respect of aquaculture claims settlements and claims settlements generally. The point raised with me, and I have since had it clarified with some of the officials myself, is that one of the concerns Māori should have in respect of these settlements is that once the Treaty settlement process is considerably through—that is, 50 percent is good enough—the Crown will then be able to signal to the World Bank and to the International Monetary Fund that this place no longer has encumbrances on the kind of rape and pillage brigade that goes into countries for the singular purpose of amassing wealth and securing the resources of indigenous people.

I wanted to raise that here and put it on the record as a concern of the Māori Party that, be it in respect of the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act of 2004, or be it in respect of the Treaty claims settlement process, there is a desperate need for Māori to oppose an end date to the claim processes, in order to ensure that those encumbrances remain for the benefit of all New Zealanders. Once those encumbrances are removed, the country becomes open to attacks by, and the invasion of, big money corporates from overseas, who will have no respect for the rights of not only Māori in this country but Pākehā as well. Koi nā noa taku kōrero mō tēnei pō.

[That is my contribution for tonight.]

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You ruled against the previous speaker speaking from another desk. But under Speakers’ ruling 45/6 it is quite clear that a speaker can speak from any desk that he or she likes.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for that. I think it is from any desk in the group of seats allocated to the party.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Speakers’ ruling 45/6 states: “(1) There is no limitation on where members may address the Chair from. Members may use their own desk or another member’s; (2) or come to the Table if they want to.” That implies to me that the previous speaker could have spoken from wherever he wished to speak from.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The issue was raised by Mr David Benson-Pope. He was wrong, and I ruled wrongly. So I apologise to Mr Hone Harawira, but I do think he looks more comfortable with Mr Te Ururoa Flavell.