9. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this
to the Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations
He aha te hātepewhiriwhiringakuawhakatakotoria e Te TariWhakatau Take e pāana ki te Tiriti o Waitangi, ki te pānui atu ki te iwi i te hiahia o Landcorp ki te hokoingā whenua kei te tautohea e ngāwhakataungairaroi te Tiriti o Waitangi?
[What is the process of consultation that the Office of Treaty Settlements initiates with respective iwi to inform them of Landcorp intentions to put up for sale lands contested in Treaty of Waitangi settlements?]
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) Link to this
If the Office of Treaty Settlements is in negotiations with a group, the office discusses the proposed sale with the mandated representatives.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
What is the Minister’s response to the comments made by Jim Sutton, former Labour Cabinet Minister and Landcorp chairperson, who told Waatea on Friday, 23 February that the Office of Treaty Settlements may have made a mistake of judgment; and would he not agree that the fact that Hauraki Māori Trust Board chairperson TokoRēnata and senior tribal kaumātua have occupied Whenuakite Station in a bid to stop the sale of the land is indeed a very serious response to this mistake of judgment?
It is obviously Mr Sutton’s prerogative to offer an opinion, and I have no particular view on his opinion. Certainly, I take all negotiations seriously, but, as the member knows, in the case of the latter there is no mandated negotiation in progress. None the less, these cases provide a complex set of circumstances, and under the circumstances I am taking the opportunity to look at the detail of them.
Hone HarawiraKia ora, Madam Speaker, kia ora tātou. How does the Minister reconcile the difference between his response to my questions in the House last Wednesday, when he suggested that Landcorp property was generally not available for use in settlements, with this comment made by Mr Sutton on Friday: “I’m working on the basis the State-owned farming company’s land is available for Treaty settlements.”?
There is no inconsistency, but perhaps I should explain. I think what Mr Sutton is referring to is that in all circumstances when surplus land is available, it is offered back to the Office of Treaty Settlements. My response indicated that it is not generally the case that that offer is taken up, because of the section 27B memorial coverage that the land already enjoys.
Pita ParaoneTēnā koe, Madam Speaker. For what reasons did the Office of Treaty Settlements refuse to purchase land offered by Landcorp for use in Treaty settlements, and who will be held accountable for any extra cost incurred if the land has to be bought back by the Crown from a private buyer for the purpose of a land settlement?
It is fair to say that the process that has been followed consistently since the early 1990s has been followed in this case. I think the decision was taken primarily on the—
Shane ArdernNo, it was not faster in the 1990s. Actually, it was slower. But let me say that the decision was taken primarily on the same grounds that have been applied since the early 1990s—that is, sufficient land was judged to be held available. Secondly, I can say to the member that should such land be acquired for the purpose of a settlement, whether by direct purchase by the Crown before the fact or through a section 27B resumption, in effect, fair market price would be the prevailing sum required. So there is actually no material difference in terms of cost to the Crown.
Nandor TanczosCould the Minister explain in what way the Government’s position differs in principle in relation to Landcorp land from that of a thief who, on being asked to return a stolen BMW car, says: “Oh, no, I put it on TradeMe, it’s up for sale. I’ll give you my Lada instead.”?
The return of land, or not, is part of a process, in each case with a mandated negotiating team from the iwi in question. That is the process used in each case. Certainly, in the case of one of the areas currently being referred to, there is not yet a mandated team.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
How does the Government propose to allay the concerns of the respective iwi who have repossessed Landcorp’sRangiputa Station on the Karikari Peninsula, and Whenuakite Station in Hauraki; and is it not sensible that in light of iwi concerns, the fact that the Prime Minister herself confirmed that she was unaware of this dispute, and the fact that Landcorp chairman, Jim Sutton, has admitted Landcorp was unaware that there was a claim on this land, all of these are an indication there is something seriously wrong with the process of land properties to be offered back under the Treaty settlements process?
As I indicated in an earlier answer—the member may have missed it what with some of the noise from members opposite—I am looking at the circumstances around both of these settlements directly. Further, I have indicated that the process that has applied since the early 1990s perhaps needs to be reviewed. In future I will have all such offer-backs referred directly to me, as Minister, which will mean a direct ministerial involvement in those future processes. Thirdly, I understand that in terms of Hauraki, Landcorp has given an undertaking that it will not take any further action on the disposal until it has had discussions with the Minister for State Owned Enterprises.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
I seek leave to table a transcript from Waateaon Friday, 23 February, in which Mr Sutton states that the Office of Treaty Settlements may have made a mistake of judgment.
Madam SPEAKER
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is a document that the Minister in charge would not mind seeing. If the member could supply it I would be quite keen.