7. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this
to the Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations
What is the basis for the Crown being able to confirm that any overlapping claims in relation to any item of cultural redress for Te Arawa have been addressed to its satisfaction?
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) Link to this
I am satisfied that the Crown followed a fair and transparent process in the Te Arawa Lakes and Te Arawa Kaihautū negotiations, ensuring that it was fully informed of all overlapping interests, and that these interests were taken properly into account.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
Can the Minister confirm that there is an intention to transfer the asset of Ngāti Whakaue, namely Whakarewarewa thermal valley, Moerangi, and Roto-a-Tamaheke cultural redress sites into the hands of NgāKaihautū o Te Arawa, when the asset in question is part of the Wai 533 claim—the Ngāti Whakaue claim to the Waitangi Tribunal?
I can confirm that part of the said asset has been transferred to the 24,000 people, or is proposed to be, and that adequate provision has been made to meet any future claims of the other groups that the member referred to.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
What would the Minister consider to be the positive implications of the decisions to resolve a settlement by transferring the land owned by one group, who are not involved in a settlement, into the ownership of another, who are involved in a negotiated settlement with the Crown?
I do not accept the member’s assertion that that is what is taking place. I would certainly tell the member that I think the positive outcome of this process is that the 24,000 claimants can proceed and get on with the positive development that is their clear aspiration.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
What possible redress could a collective such as Ngāti Whakaue have if their resources are commandeered out of their hands, hapū relations are interfered with, and a fresh grievance is caused, all in the name of simply settling a grievance by another group?
As I have said already, I do not accept the member’s assertion, but of course what is open to Ngāti Whakaue, as to others who have not yet settled, is in due course to properly appoint mandated representatives to negotiate with the Crown. I am confident that that is what will happen.
Christopher Finlayson Link to this
How can it be that the Minister and his officials failed to address the obvious issue of overlapping claims for cultural redress when negotiating the settlement with Te Arawa, and what does he propose doing about it now?
Again, the member’s assertion is fundamentally incorrect. The Crown did not fail to address overlapping claims. One cannot settle an overlapping claim until the claimant group concerned lodges a claim and has mandated negotiators. What is critically important is that those groups and those hapū and iwi have the capacity to enter, in due course, into negotiations with their own mandated negotiators, and there are assets aplenty to settle such claims.