4. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations
Do the Crown negotiations with Tainui over the Waikato River cover the area from Huka Falls to the mouth at Port Waikato, including its waters, banks, and beds (and all minerals under them), its streams, tributaries, lakes, aquatic fisheries, vegetation, and flood plains as well as its “metaphysical being”, as defined by Tainui?
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) Link to this
The member appears to be referring to Waikato Tainui’s definition of the river as recorded in the 1995 deed of settlement. The definition is repeated in the terms of negotiation—
Doug Graham for the then National Government. That definition is repeated in the terms of negotiation signed just last December. It is the definition that Waikato Tainui have, and which they bring to the negotiating table.
Does the area identified by Tainui include the ironsands at Maioro, and can he rule out New Zealand Steel having to pay a royalty for those sands to Tainui in excess of what they currently have agreed?
As I have said to the member on numerous occasions, the content of any negotiation is not something I can talk about ahead of an agreement in principle. But, of course, once the agreement in principle is available the member will see what is in it and be able to discuss it as has always been the case, and as is appropriate.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Given that the Minister has accepted that the definition I read out at the start is, in fact, the basis on which these negotiations are being conducted, is it fair that he does, in the public interest, indicate whether the ironsands at Maioro are part of that particular claim? After all, that would be in the public interest, were he able to do that. He may not be able to answer the second part because, of course, he will not know how much Tainui want to charge, but at this stage he should indicate whether those sands—those mineral resources—are part of the claim.
Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, I say that the member should take care to listen carefully to the answer that I gave. I indicated Tainui’s definition, and I can tell the member that the Crown respects that that is the preferred definition of Waikato Tainui.
Madam SPEAKERThe Minister did address the question. I understand that it obviously did not satisfy the member who asked the question. But the Minister is entitled to address it in that way.
R Doug WoolertonWhat assurances can the Minister give that no New Zealander will be faced with economic hardship, or reduced river access, as a result of the Tainui claim?
As I indicated in the House yesterday, whilst I cannot comment on the detail of negotiation until an agreement in principle is released, the members can take complete reassurance from the public statement of a co-negotiator that no such claim has any part of Tainui’s engagement in these negotiations. I am happy to reread it to the member.
Indeed, I will do just that. “Public access, private and third party rights are completely and fully protected. It’s always our view to ensure the rights of individuals, whether Māori or non-Māori, are never compromised in any shape or form, and we have always made it absolutely clear to the Crown that we have no intention of infringing, compromising, or obstructing any access…”. That is a statement made on Radio New Zealand yesterday by Tukoroirangi Morgan, a co-negotiator.
Metiria TureiDoes the Minister agree with the comments of the Prime Minister when, in justifying her foreshore and seabed policy, she said: “These areas are important to all New Zealanders and everyone must be able to use and enjoy them now and in the future”; if so, how does he reconcile that statement with his answer to the previous question defending the Tainui River and Te Arawa Lakes settlements, which prove that both title of such land to Māori and guaranteed public access to that waterway is available, possible, legal, ethical, and just?
Can the Minister confirm that the negotiations between the Crown and Tainui have been stalled by issues raised by Environment Waikato; if so, what were those issues?
What role has Environment Waikato had in the discussions between the Government and Tainui so far; and has its opinion on matters relating to co-management of the river been sought by the Government negotiators?
Whilst I cannot comment on the content of any current negotiation ahead of an agreement in principle, it is certainly the case that while the Crown negotiates with Tainui—they are the two negotiating partners—I have certainly engaged usefully and constructively with Environment Waikato and will continue to do so.
Have Taniui approached these negotiations expecting recognition of their ownership and control of the rivers, water, and its minerals; and is the Government considering that particular aspect of the negotiation?
Tainui have approached these negotiations, in my experience, in good faith and expecting good faith in return. That is why I cannot comment on the content—