10. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations
How does he define “historical claims” as referred to in the Government’s 2005 election policy?
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) Link to this
Historical claims relate to Crown acts or omissions prior to 21 September 1992. This definition has been consistently applied since its adoption by Cabinet in 1992.
When does he intend to introduce legislation to the House to give effect to the election promise to close off the lodgment of all historic Treaty of Waitangi claims by 1 September 2008?
I can assure the member that the appropriate Minister will put the appropriate legislation before the House to ensure that the legislation is passed in plenty of time to meet that target.
What discussions has the Minister had with the Hon Nanaia Mahuta over the conflicting claims between Ngāti Te Ata and Tainui over the iron sands at Maioro?
Whilst I meet frequently with the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, I have not had any meetings on that subject as such.
Pita ParaoneDoes the Minister agree that the key to expeditiously resolving historical claims lies not in adopting a negative approach, unlike some parties in this House, but in adopting constructive ideas such as those contained in the Waka Umanga report, like having iwi groups establish mandated corporate entities at the front end of negotiations rather than during the final stages of negotiations; if not, why not?
I entirely agree with the member’s assertion that constructive engagement to find creative ways to reach settlement is indeed the best way forward. Although not every idea that is advanced will necessarily be appropriate, improvements can certainly be made, and I am actively seeking to make them.
Is it a policy of this Government for the Office of Treaty Settlements to ignore Waitangi Tribunal findings; if not, why has the Office of Treaty Settlements decided to ignore a 1985 Waitangi Tribunal finding that the Crown should negotiate with Ngāti Te Ata over Maioro and decided to deal instead with Tainui?
I would have to look at the documentation to see whether the member’s assertion is correct. Certainly, it is not the practice of the Office of Treaty Settlements to ignore the tribunal, but it does not always agree with the tribunal.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to reflect on that answer. He is virtually saying that I am wrong in making that particular assertion. He is the Minister; one would assume that where there is such a difficult conflict, he might have received some report on it. This is an issue that could see New Zealand Steel shut down within a very short time, and I do not believe for one minute that the Minister has not been acquainted with the difficulties that exist over that particular claim.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
That may or may not be the case, but I think if one looks carefully at question No. 10, one will see that it is not clear this was a matter that was signalled as part of the original question. Some of the problems we had last week—or possibly the week before; I do not know whether I was here last week—were around these issues of having blind first questions, British House of Commons style. People cannot expect Ministers to bring all the details of every Office of Treaty Settlements case in response to a question like that. If one wanted to go even further, one might want to question whether asking the Minister to define historical claims and then going to a specific claim is within the bounds of the original question, anyway. [ Interruption]
Madam SPEAKERNo, I do not need further help; I thank members. The question was a general one. The member is entitled to ask questions within that general context, and did, but the Minister is equally entitled to express a view, which he did. If he felt that the member was wrong, then he is entitled to say that. I ask the member to ask a supplementary question.
Why is the Office of Treaty Settlements now deciding to deal with Tainui in matters that should rightly be dealt with through Ngāti Te Ata, on the basis that Ngāti Te Ata are hapū of Tainui, when in fact Ngāti Te Ata do not appear as one of the 23 listed hapū in the Tainui settlement legislation?
Frankly, my colleague Mr Mallard made the pertinent point. I am simply not prepared to come to the House and debate the detail of—
Hon Dr Nick SmithI say to Mr Smith that the fact that I do know what is going on in the portfolio means I am not prepared to come to the House and discuss the detail of any one of 23 complex negotiations in a superficial way.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That cannot be an acceptable answer from the Minister. These questions are set down early in the day. Surely a Minister would go to his office staff and ask what all the interesting, difficult, potentially troublesome settlements or claims around the countryside are that this question might lead on to. Surely, do we not have a right to expect that when the imminent closure of New Zealand Steel is at stake, the Minister may have received a briefing? Further, are we not entitled to imagine that these—
The point of order is that you surely cannot allow Ministers to simply say that they did not anticipate the question, and that they will come back—
No. I need no assistance with this. I have already ruled, in effect, that of course the Minister did address the question. It is always appropriate for a Minister to ask for notice of specific matters that are raised as a result of a general question. That is perfectly in order as a response.
Hon Nanaia Mahuta Link to this
Can the Minister clarify that if there is a dispute within iwi over mandate, there is a process with the Office of Treaty Settlements for working that dispute through?
Because the member asks a general question, I say that there is, absolutely, a process. Generally, questions within iwi are best solved within iwi, particularly as they relate to mandating, but often the Office of Treaty Settlements does lend assistance to that process.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Is it the Minister’s practice to work carefully through issues within his portfolio in a timely manner, to comment on them as appropriate when he has focused on them, and not to leave dozens and dozens of boxes of papers in his room, as the Hon Nick Smith did when he stopped being a Minister? [ Interruption]
No. Would the Minister please rephrase that question without including the last phrase that has caused the problem.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We have had a number of questions today that have asked for a bit of a narrowing of the way in which questions can be answered. I have been told repeatedly that my questions are too broad in relation to question No. 10 itself. How on earth can a Minister being asked to comment on his style of work in any way relate to question No. 10?
No. The problem with the question, Mr Brownlee, was that what the member asked was actually too specific and narrow, but your original question was fine. The point is that the Minister has addressed the questions here, we have to make progress, and if I receive any more frivolous points of order, then I will rule that the House is being brought into disrepute. So would the Minister please address the question without the member’s last part—an opinion on that, but without the comparison please.
The member is entirely correct. This is a complex portfolio in which mistakes are costly in every sense of the word. We have managed to achieve in a relatively short time, in the term of this Government, six deeds of settlements. Thirteen groups have entered negotiations. We have 25 live negotiations proceeding right now. The portfolio requires extreme care and a degree of caution that is rare even in ministerial portfolios. It would be simply irresponsible to treat those issues flippantly and frivolously in this House.