9. Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this
to the Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations
Is it Government policy not to include Treaty clauses in bills other than Treaty-related legislation; if so, why?
Is he aware that the Māori Focus Forum set up by the Commissioner of Police called the absence of a Treaty clause in the Policing Bill a particular disappointment; if so, why did Labour vote against the Treaty clause put forward by the Māori Party for the Policing Bill?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
No, I am not aware of that statement, but even if I had been, I would not have been inclined to alter my advice to my colleagues. These matters are dealt with on a case by case basis by the Government. It is not clear what a Treaty clause would mean in this instance.
Does he recall the Minister of Immigration justifying Labour’s decision to vote down the Māori Party’s proposal for a Treaty clause in the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill by stating that Labour had consulted extensively with what he called “the kaitiaki of tikanga in the Labour Māori caucus”; if so, what was the advice of the Labour Māori caucus about Treaty clauses?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The advice I receive on that is that these matters should be dealt with on a case by case basis. Labour has a proud record of implementing Treaty settlements over recent times.
Would he agree that the fact that Ngāi Tahu has taken a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal against the emissions trading scheme now makes that bill Treaty-related legislation; if so, why did the Labour Government vote down the Māori Party’s proposed Treaty clause for the emissions trading scheme bill?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
No. The tribunal would arrive at its own decisions. The fact that somebody takes a case does not make it a Treaty-related issue; otherwise, any case could be taken to the tribunal and halt any kind of action in that regard. In relation to the Ngāi Tahu situation, there are two quite separate issues. The first is whether, in any sense, the Government in the 1990s negotiated in good faith. There is a process to deal with that issue through an independent process. The second is whether any general Government legislation may at any point impact, in any fashion, upon any value of any property that resulted from a Treaty settlement. If the argument is that it cannot, then that is to set up a two-tier process of legislation in Government from this point on. In any case, the member and, I suspect, Ngāi Tahu have not fully taken account of the fact that emissions units and the value of those will apply to the land bought before 2002, and at a carbon emissions price of $23 a tonne, Ngāi Tahu actually is a net gainer from the transfer.