7. CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) Link to this
to the Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations
Does he have confidence in the Office of Treaty Settlements; if not, why not?
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) Link to this
Yes. In my experience, it has dedicated and diligent officials.
Christopher Finlayson Link to this
Can the Minister confirm that the Office of Treaty Settlements official responsible for determining there were no cross-claim issues in Tāmaki-makau-rau that the Crown needed to be cognisant of was a graduate who was less than 1 year out of university, with no training or experience in Māori land claims, and who did not consult any of the claimant groups in the area?
Christopher Finlayson Link to this
Why did the Office of Treaty Settlements tell the Waitangi Tribunal that NgātiWhātua was the only Auckland iwi willing to enter into direct negotiations with the Crown, when the Office of Treaty Settlements itself had earlier refused to enter into negotiation with any of the six other claimant groups in Auckland?
To the best of my knowledge, as at this date there are no other mandated groups ready to enter into negotiation in that area. The member is incorrect.
Maryan StreetI have heard extensive comments. Yesterday in this House Mr Finlayson talked about what he claims was the record of the National Government on Treaty settlements. The facts are that of the 21 settlements negotiated to date, National can claim only three settlements of substantial size: on fisheries, on the Waikato raupatu, and with NgāiTahu. The rest are smaller—five with a value of less than $1 million—and most left substantial issues to be settled. He also ignores the settlements that National tried to rush through, and failed. The people of Whakatōhea rejected outright the deal that National tried to cook up, and agreements with Te Ātiawa and Rangitāne o Manawatū fell apart almost as soon as they were reached. This Government has negotiated two large settlements from start to finish. [ Interruption] I say to Mr Henare that he should listen. It has done most of the substantive work on three more settlements. Some of those have been very complex. This Government has also brought a further five settlements to a successful conclusion, and has brought more groups than ever before into negotiations.
Pita ParaoneTēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Does the Minister agree with his colleague the Minister of Māori Affairs, who said that the recent reports of the Waitangi Tribunal into the NgātiWhātua ki Ōrākei and Te Arawa claims may or may not affect the timeliness of those and other claims being settled; and, noting that both those claimants entered into direct negotiation with the Crown, does he agree with the Waitangi Tribunal that direct negotiations should stop; if not, why not?
There are several questions there. To take the first part of the question first, I think my colleague was noting that there were a number of recommendations that the Government should give careful consideration to, and it will. I have also made the same indication. I think the notion of bringing the settlement process to a halt raises other questions of good faith, not only with those claimants with whom good-faith negotiations have proceeded but also with many others around the country.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. How does the Minister respond to the tribunal’s findings that: “During the implementation of the Crown’s policies in Te Arawa, OTS failed to act as an honest broker in the negotiation process, OTS failed to discharge its Treaty and fiduciary duties to all Māori, and OTS did not act honourably and with the utmost good faith.”?
Firstly, the role of the Office of Treaty Settlements is not to be a broker; it is to act on behalf of the Crown as a negotiator. As I indicated, I think, in my answer to the substantive question, my experience of the officials of the Office of Treaty Settlements is that they are honourable people who act in good faith.
Nandor TanczosIs it the officials or Government policy that is to blame for the negligent manner in which the Office of Treaty Settlements treats claimants, as highlighted by the NgātiWhātua o Ōrākei report and the Te Arawa report, and specifically, what will happen to officials responsible for the failure to interact with cross-claimants as promised, for the failure to provide accurate information about their status in negotiations, for the failure to involve cross-claimants in the deliberations of officials, for the failure to respond to claimants unless they had persistent lawyers, and finally, for the provision of misleading information to the Waitangi Tribunal, as highlighted by the NgātiWhātua o Ōrākei hearings?
Madam SPEAKERBefore the Minister addresses the question, I remind members that normally a supplementary question is one question.
Perhaps the most important question of the many the member asks is the first one. I do not accept the assertion on which that question is based.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that at the Standing Orders Committee we have been discussing the question of simultaneous translation, but I think that that answer needs translation into English. Is the Minister saying that absolutely nothing will happen to anyone?
Christopher Finlayson Link to this
Does the Minister agree that there is a problem with the Crown’s approach in the Tāmaki-makau-rau negotiating process, when the Waitangi Tribunal has labelled the behaviour of the Office of Treaty Settlements as “cavalier, unfair, generally uncooperative, providing only partial answers to questions, and being less than open in its dealings with the tribunal”?
As I have indicated on a number of occasions, I will look very carefully at the critique of the tribunal. However, I do not accept that the attitude or the conduct of the officials was cavalier.
Given the Minister’s answer to my previous question, is he saying that no action will be taken over officials misleading a judicial tribunal, as highlighted by Judge Wainwright in her report, and should we now refer to his office as the “Office of Perjury”?
I think the judge has been moved to clarify her position since issuing that report, by saying that she was not implying that anyone acted intentionally to mislead. I think it is important that the member takes note of that fact. Secondly, if officials have made any good-faith mistake, that is one matter. I do not accept, and I see no evidence to suggest, that any official has intentionally misled any tribunal.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Is it not ironic that the tribunal reports that the Crown, through the actions of the Office of Treaty Settlements, has “crossed over and usurped the rangatiratanga of iwi and hapū, thereby committing grave breaches of the Treaty”, and does that not provide a perfect reason to implement the tribunal’s recommendation that annual audits of the Office of Treaty Settlements be commissioned to ensure that its management and policy operations are aligned to the Crown’s Treaty obligations?
I do not agree with the assertion in the first part of the question. As to the recommendation, as I said before, we will be looking carefully at a number of recommendations. I am not sure that having another agency try to do an annual audit of this agency would add value, but certainly the idea of looking to maximise the quality of work undertaken is something we are constantly seeking to realise.
Christopher Finlayson Link to this
Can the Minister confirm that after the tribunal criticised the Office of Treaty Settlement’s non-disclosure of relevant material, several staff from Crown Law had to visit the Office of Treaty Settlements to explain exactly what “relevant” meant and to go through all of that office’s Tāmaki-makau-rau files to find relevant material to supply to the tribunal, because Office of Treaty Settlements staff lacked the ability to determine what was or was not relevant?
No, I cannot confirm that because, as usual, the member is misrepresenting the facts. However, I can confirm to the member—
Hon Tau HenareIf Mr Henare would like to stop yelling, I will answer the question. I can confirm that Crown Law officials were invited to go and assist the office and, in effect, to do an independent overview of those records. I can also confirm that the tribunal found that the additional documents provided added no new information to that available to it.
Christopher Finlayson Link to this
Can the Minister confirm that the flagship of the Government’s Treaty negotiations Budget last year—a fourth negotiating team—has not been created, that there are currently no plans to create a fourth negotiating team, and that this is just another broken promise, like “chewing gum tax cuts” and 20 free hours?
The Government’s policy was to ensure the capacity of the Office of Treaty Settlements to engage with, pre-mandate, negotiate with, and provide legal advice to groups was increased. It has been.
Hon Harry Duynhoven Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you inform the House as to whether there has been a rearrangement of the seating order opposite. If there has not been, could you ask Mr Henare to abide by the normal convention of interjecting from his own place, instead of moving closer to the Minister who is answering the question in order to do so.
Members do from time to time shift their positions in the Chamber. It appears, by the chair he is sitting in, that Mr Henare is now an Opposition whip, so I presume that is—
Would you please leave the Chamber. You are sitting in a whip’s chair, so that is actually the assumption that is made. Those are the conventions.
Christopher Finlayson Link to this
I seek leave to table a document showing the dates of the various stages of the settlement process, dated 21 June 2007.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
Has the Minister received any feedback yet from Māori interests expressing concern at the notion that direct negotiations cannot occur until a full Waitangi Tribunal hearing has occurred, causing much greater delays and much greater expense to claimants; if so, what is the Government expected to do in relation to groups that are ready to negotiate, are mandated, and wish to proceed to direct negotiations?
I can confirm indeed that in the last 24 hours I have had a meeting with one group who have come specifically to express that concern. I have a meeting with another gentleman this afternoon: the senior kaumātua from another iwi, who, having entered into good-faith discussions with the Crown, now wonders whether that is being undermined. So yes, that has created considerable disquiet. I want to assure all those whom we have engaged with that we will continue to engage in good faith whilst considering carefully the recommendations of the tribunal.
Christopher Finlayson Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is just a point of clarification. When the Attorney-General belatedly leapt to his feet, I could not hear whether my request to table a document had been rejected or accepted.