10. CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) Link to this
to the Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations
Does he agree with the Prime Minister when she said in her prime ministerial statement of 13 February 2007 that: “The historical Treaty settlement process has considerable momentum.”; if so, why?
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) Link to this
Yes, because the Prime Minister is correct.
Christopher Finlayson Link to this
How can the process have momentum when the Government, at a time when it expects a huge increase in Treaty claims, has reduced inflation-adjusted funding to the Office of Treaty Settlements by almost half a million dollars?
The fact is that over the last four Budgets the Office of Treaty Settlements has been able to facilitate claims in greater numbers through the installation of a claims development team, a new negotiations team that was established in 2003, and a policy, strategy, and legal team that was established in 2004. New initiative funding of $5.174 million was in last year’s Budget to further enhance its capability. The Office of Treaty Settlements has more negotiators than it had. I suggest to the member that the maths is self-evident.
Madam SPEAKERChristopher Finlayson Link to this
That is why I did not raise a point of order. How can the process have momentum when over the 7 years the Government has been in office, inflation-adjusted funding for the Waitangi Tribunal has increased by just $305,000—or by an average of just over $43,000 a year?
I suggest that if the member wants to put down a question to the Minister responsible for the Waitangi Tribunal, he should do so.
Christopher Finlayson Link to this
Is it not true that there is momentum in the Treaty settlement process when both Treaty partners trust one another and have a positive attitude towards settling grievances; and by reference to Hauraki iwi, will not the sale of Landcorp’sWhenuakite Station at Whitianga cause serious insult to Hauraki iwi and indeed slow the momentum of the settlement process?
I suggest that the record of negotiations in the last 2 years—three deeds of mandate have been recognised, two terms of negotiations have been signed, two agreements in principle have been signed, two deeds of settlement have been initialled, two deeds of settlement have been signed, two settlement bills have been introduced, and two settlement bills have been passed—suggests that there is indeed a momentum. As to the specific case of Hauraki, which is not yet in negotiation, the time and place for the Crown and mandated negotiators to discuss that matter is in face-to-face negotiation.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, kia ora tātou. In order that the considerable momentum of the historical Treaty settlement process can be maintained, could the Minister indicate what the appropriate circumstances might be that would enable Landcorp properties to be used as redress for Ngāti Kahu lands in the north and Ngāti Hei lands in Hauraki that were stolen by the Crown; and, similarly, for the Raurimu and Taurewa blocks in the National Park area, which are at present being considered by the Waitangi Tribunal?
Although I am not prepared to enter into discussion about specific negotiations—because the time and place for that is between mandated negotiators and Crown negotiators—the general principle would be that it is when no suitable holdings exist in order to make suitable redress offers to claimant groups.
Christopher Finlayson Link to this
Is it not true that there could be considerable momentum and goodwill created in Hauraki if Whenuakite Station were to be held by the Crown or a holding entity in order to preserve the status quo pending negotiation of the total Hauraki settlement, and will the Minister consider this option?
I am not clear whether the member is asking that question as an MP, or as a barrister on behalf of a claimant, as he has in the past, but I suggest to the member—
Gerry BrownleeI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That was clearly a breach of the Standing Orders. The Minister should be pulled into line. That implied that the member asking the question was somehow under the influence or direction of persons outside of this House, and, as you well know, that is quite inappropriate.
If that was the impression gained, I do apologise. That certainly was not my intent. I was simply drawing attention to the fact that I am aware of the member’s considerable career in representing various claimant groups.
As long as there was no such implication. Would the Minister please just address the substance of the question.
The critical thing is that the time and place to engage in a negotiation is when it is between mandated negotiators from that area and Crown negotiators. I have met recently with representatives of the area, and when there is an opportunity for us to engage with mandated negotiators, we will happily do so.
Hone HarawiraKia ora, Madam Speaker, kia ora tātou te Whare. What is the basis for this Labour Government now saying that the Crown’s policy is that Landcorp properties are generally not available for use in settlements, given that Landcorp properties were generally available—in fact, were specifically and deliberately available—for use in settlements during the reign of the National Government and given that there have been no publicly notifiable changes to the relevant legislation or regulation since that time?
Essentially, as I indicated in answers yesterday, in particular, and to some extent today, when there are, as a first preference, other easily available properties for redress, the first option is to use those. It is not ruled out, as I know that the member understands, that under other circumstances, such as when the tribunal orders it, those properties may well come into play under resumption.
Christopher Finlayson Link to this
Is it not the truth of the matter that there has only ever been momentum in the Treaty settlement process when National has been in office, as evidenced by the ongoing decline in funding for the Office of Treaty Settlements by this Government, and the incompetent manner in which the Minister is dealing with Hauraki iwi over Whenuakite Station?
Whilst I have considerable regard for my predecessor the Hon Doug Graham—[ Interruption] one of my predecessors; of course the other, I would not want to draw into the debate—and the work he did in this very difficult portfolio, I have to say that the member is wrong. It seems the member does understand the cost of some things but the value of little. I repeat to the member that I cannot enter into a negotiation until there is a mandated negotiator to negotiate with.