7. Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this
to the Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations
I runga i te āhua kua tohaina te rima miriona tāra mō ngā tau e whā, ka taea e te Minita te kī mai e hia ngā tono e pā ana ki te Tiriti o Waitangi ka oti i runga ake i ngā tono i whakaritea kia oti, mehemea kāre i tukuna e ia te rima miriona tāra hei pūtea?
[Given the $5 million funding over a 4-year period, how many Treaty of Waitangi claims does the Minister believe will be completed, over and above those that would have been completed had the $5 million not been made available?]
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) Link to this
The additional funding will primarily be directed at front-line negotiation and will boost that capacity by around 20 percent. This will meet the increase in demand from Māori seeking to enter into negotiations that in the last financial year alone have seen five groups have mandates for negotiation recognised by the Crown. The nature of the negotiations means that the number of settlements reached depends on mutual agreements being reached between the parties.
Nā te aha i mārama te Minita ka tere ake te āhua tono ki te Taraipunara o Waitangi mēnā ka tukua e ia he pūtea rima miriona tāra mō ngā tau e whā?
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[How did the Minister determine that all that was necessary to speed up the process of Treaty claims was the expenditure of $5 million over 4 years?]
Certainly, that is not the case. This is simply the latest increase—in fact, it is the fourth in the term of this Labour-led Government—that has enhanced the research, legal, negotiation, and pre-negotiation capability of the Office of Treaty Settlements.
Gerry BrownleeDoes the Minister intend to recommend to the Attorney-General that a person’s holding the dual roles of Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court and chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal is incompatible with the tribunal’s goal of quickly reaching determinations that may assist with more speedy settlements?
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have just been accused of being a thief by one of the great political thieves of this nation. I am upset, and I want him to withdraw and apologise.
Madam SPEAKERI did not hear what that member said, but if the member took offence would that member please withdraw and apologise.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I merely said to the member that he should stop stealing our policies. If one looks at the chronology of events, one can see that that is precisely what National did on that issue.
The member took offence, and the convention of this House is that all the member has to do is to withdraw and apologise.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Something has emerged in this House of recent date, and that is that the National Party just cannot take it. Their members come down to this House, fling all sorts of insults—[ Interruption] This is a point of order, and there they go again.
The problem for the member is that it is not a point of order; it is a statement or a debating point at this stage. We have handled that matter so I would like us to move on, if we can.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order, if I had been allowed to get to it, despite about 20—[ Interruption]
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
My point of order was simply that if we are going to have—[ Interruption]
There has to be some order in this House. No one is admitting to it. The laughter obviously came from outside the Chamber. Would members please respect the rules.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
My point of order is that if we are going to have points of order raised on the basis that Gerry Brownlee raised his—that he took offence at someone accusing him of stealing this policy—then this House will be so puce and antiseptic as not to be worth joining in the first place. That is probably a suggestion that the National Party would like us to follow but, for my part, I think that this is a most robust debating chamber, and that people should have a bit more gumption that that.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
One of the most famous sayings in 19th century politics is about the leader of one party stealing clothing from the other party’s washing line, and that saying is in relation to policy matters. We really have got to the stage where we will be so un-robust in terms of our language that Parliament will be like a PC kindergarten—and I wonder when the spokesman on PC eradication opposite will intervene in this debate.
Members have had their say on this matter. As members know, I try to conduct a robust debate. But the truth is that if members take offence, then there is a convention and that will be judged accordingly. [ Interruption] Does the member have another point of order?
For those who have forgotten the question, the member asked me about referring a matter to the Attorney-General. Unfortunately, the member asked me to make a reference on a matter for which I have no ministerial responsibility. I am responsible neither for the Waitangi Tribunal nor for the Māori Land Court. But, to be helpful to the member, I tell him I understand that the matter is under consideration.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Is the Minister aware that the policy of removing the head of the Waitangi Tribunal or the head of the Māori Land Court appeared on a political party’s website a full 3 years before the National Party decided to purloin it?
As it happens, I am; indeed, I recall that the New Zealand First Party supported that policy some 3 years ago.
Hone HarawiraKei te manawa pai te Minita ki ngā āhua whakatatū tono ki te Taraipunara o Waitangi ahakoa he rahi ngā tono ātete, ngā whakawehewehe ngau i waenganui i ngā hapū me ngā iwi, i runga i te āhua tuku tono, ā, mēnā kei te manawa pai, he aha i pērā ai?
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[Is the Minister satisfied with the process for settling Treaty claims, given the counterclaims and iwi-hapū divisions that have occurred as a result of the processes adopted; if he is satisfied, why is he?]
I am satisfied, generally, that the process, which is a difficult and challenging one, is making progress and accelerating. I think that the challenges include cross-claim tensions, but I have been extraordinarily impressed by the way in which most hapū and iwi resolve those tensions and work towards settlement. We saw a really good example of that just last week in this House, when the majority of members supported the first reading of the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill.
Hon Nanaia Mahuta Link to this
Can the Minister confirm that it is very difficult to settle Treaty claims when a group sits on the fence?
Yes, I can, because in the end the settlement process requires constructive engagement. When we engage and seek to find solutions rather than to sit on the fence, then we make the progress that this Government has indeed been making over the last 6 years.
Ron MarkDoes the response of the Māori Party disappoint the Minister; and does he believe that the refusal of that party to support the Te Arawa tribe in their Treaty settlement is likely to undermine the interests of the Te Arawa tribe?
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The vote by the Māori Party was not in opposition to the desires of the Te Arawa tribe; it was against the decisions of the Labour Party to deny them justice in their claim.
Yes, I do. Frankly, the claim the member has attempted to make by way of a point of order belies the fact that that was a negotiation between two parties. To suggest that the kaumātua of Te Arawa are not capable, and that they do not have the mandate and the mana to stand and negotiate a full and fair settlement on their own behalf, I think is to insult them.
Ka taea e te Minita te whakamārama nā runga i te aha i whakaritea kotahi piriona, toru rau miriona, te wāriu o ngā tono ki te Taraipunara o Waitangi, ā, he aha hoki koirā tonu te rahi o te pūtea ahakoa he aha; mēnā kāhore, he aha ai?
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[Can the Minister describe the formula and rationale used to determine the value of the Treaty claims, and the rationale for continuing to compensate claims on the basis of a $1.3 billion fiscal cap; if not, why not?]
I take the latter part of the question first—no, I cannot, because there is no such fiscal cap. To the first part of the question, I say that each claim is unique and individual, and is negotiated accordingly.