5. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this
to the Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations
Kua ea tōna hiahia ki ngā tohutohu a te Tari Whakatau Take e pā ana ki te Tiriti o Waitangi; meinā kāre, he aha ai?
[Is he satisfied with the advice provided by the Office of Treaty Settlements; if not, why not?]
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) Link to this
Generally, yes, because they are hard-working and conscientious officials.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
Kia ora anō tātou. What explanation can the Minister give for the fact that when asked about the repossession that began on Sunday at Whenuakite Station the Prime Minister responded on Monday by saying: “I haven’t had any briefing on that one, at all.”, and that statement was used in the New Zealand Herald this morning; and would he not agree that the early warning of such action falls within the core functions of the Office of Treaty Settlements to “Advise on the acquisition, management, transfer and disposal of Crown-owned property for Treaty claim purposes.”?
As I think the member is aware, there is not yet a mandated negotiation in process, so the section that the member quotes does not seem to me to apply to that case. In any event, the Office of Treaty Settlements provided appropriate advice to the appropriate people.
Hone HarawiraTēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā tātou i te Whare. Is the Minister willing to formally apologise to the properly mandated negotiators for Ngāti Kahu and Hauraki for the monstrous cock-up caused by the lack of clear communication between various Government agencies and their Ministers, and for the harm caused to those negotiators and their whānau, hapū, and iwi by the insensitive and arrogant manner in which he lent tacit approval to Landcorp, offering for sale to the highest bidder lands that should properly have been made available for Treaty settlement?
I do not accept the assertions in the member’s question, and, certainly, some of those assertions are factually incorrect.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Does the Minister not accepting assertions mean that he addressed the question, because he did not address it or answer it, at all?
Madam SPEAKER
Christopher Finlayson Link to this
Is the real problem not so much the quality of the advice tendered by the Office of Treaty Settlements but the Minister’s capacity to understand that advice?
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
Has the Minister read comments from Landcorp Chairman, Mr Jim Sutton, that the Crown entity was the “meat in the sandwich” in relation to Hauraki Māori concerns about a prime block of Coromandel land, and that: “There is obviously a claim on this land that we were not aware of. Had we been aware of it, of course we would have been trying to persuade the Office of Treaty Settlements to purchase it.”; and would he not have considered it to be the role of the Office of Treaty Settlements to advise Landcorp accordingly?
Yes, I have seen those comments; I think it is the role of Landcorp to make decisions based on its obligations, and it is the role of the Office of Treaty Settlements to make decisions and provide advice according to its mandate.
Hon Bill EnglishCan the Minister confirm to the House today whether it is the case that Landcorp properties such as this one will now be available for Treaty settlements, and that the Government has changed its mind because one group protested?
I can confirm that properties of Landcorp such as this one have always been potentially available, and still are. Therefore, nothing has changed.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
I seek leave to table the article entitled “Land sale on shaky ground” from the New Zealand Herald of 27 February 2007, in which the Prime Minister admits that she has no brief on the Whenuakite situation.