Estimates Debate — Vote Treaty Negotiations

I suggest that all these votes be debated as one debate, but that at the end we have a separate vote on each one. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.

Kia ora. Whilst I stand to speak in the estimates debate about Vote Treaty Negotiations, I want to take a little time to acknowledge the valedictory speech made by Graham Kelly prior to the dinner break, to wish him and his family the best in the years ahead of them, and to thank him for his comments about his experiences in this Parliament. So to him and his family I say ngā manaakitanga.

I also want to acknowledge comments made in the previous debate, in particular the words of the Hon Pete Hodgson in response to the accusations made by the ACT member Mr Ken Shirley in relation to extortion by Ngāti Tuwharetoa kaumātua. Because I have an association with these people, I think that particular matter needed to be addressed, and I thank the Hon Georgina te Heuheu for providing that information.

I will now take Mr Chairman’s lead and get back to the topic at hand. Whilst treaty negotiations is a quite wide portfolio I want to speak specifically to progress in that area. Before doing that I acknowledge the Hon Margaret Wilson and the hard-working staff of the Office of Treaty Settlements for much of the work they have done in the past year, and for the programme they have laid out for the 2003-04 financial year. As we are all aware, Vote Treaty Negotiations contributes a major outcome for this Government in terms of a fairer and more credible and effective justice system through the immediate outcome of fair and durable settlements that resolve historical grievances relating to the Treaty of Waitangi. I underline the term “historical grievances”, which means that we are dealing with grievances related to whenua; we have yet to deal with contemporary claims in terms of natural resources and adverse effects upon Māori of land confiscations.

The Office of Treaty Settlements told the Māori Affairs Committee that the rate of progress of historical treaty settlement negotiations has increased. There are now more claimant groups in negotiations than ever before. A new settlement is expected to be reached every 6 months. The reasons given for the increased rate of activity include recent Government commitments, such as the decisions to enter pre-negotiation discussions with five central North Island claimants, they being Te Arawa, Ngāi Tūhoe, Ngati Tuwharetoa, Ngāti Manawa, and Ngāti Whare, and to engage in intensive negotiations with Whanganui River claimants, Ngāti Whātua o Orakei, and Ngāti Kahu; the new claims development team established in 2002-03 to assist claimant groups to enter into the negotiation process, to provide advice on mandate issues, and to ensure greater integration between the Crown and the Waitangi Tribunal at the pre-negotiation phase; the Waitangi Tribunal’s new approach to researching, hearing, and reporting on historical treaty claims, with the expectation now that hearings will be concluded by 2010 or 2011; and the progress made on Taranaki and Bay of Plenty claims, which has encouraged other groups to enter into direct negotiations with the Office of Treaty Settlements.

The Taranaki claim, as well as the claims of the far north, are very interesting claims. In the past they have been considered so difficult that they have been placed in the too-hard basket. But through the commitment of this Government, particularly the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, a road ahead has been found, and we are now dealing with many Taranaki claimant groups. We recently settled the Ngāti Ruanui claim, and a lot of credit is due to them for their commitment to their own development. Whilst there are a lot of issues ahead of Ngāti Ruanui, in terms of reconciling differences between themselves and other Taranaki hapū, I have no doubt that in the future they will resolve a lot of those issues, and will work together to promote their future generations, and to develop not only their own economic potential but also their economic independence. Similarly, we are experiencing a lot of progress in the far north. Although what was once described as the Muriwhenua claim had a lot of traction in earlier years, in more recent times it has been very difficult to make progress on it. But through the leadership of the Minister, many of those individual iwi have come to the table and entered into negotiations with this Government.

All of that has happened in a very, very short of space of time, if we compare it with the progress that was made over the last decade. The previous Government hung its hat on two major claim settlements during its 9-year term—and they were very, very difficult claims to settle. There has been a lot of criticism by the other claimant groups, and by members in this House, that the treaty settlements process is far too slow. However, those concerns, whilst well justified, do not take into consideration the difficulties that this Government and the previous Government have faced in working through some very, very difficult issues with regard to those claims.

I understand that the Secretary for Justice previously estimated a period of 25 years for the completion of settlements, but we are also aware that the Waitangi Tribunal re-estimated the date for completion of claims to somewhere around 2014, and has reduced it to 2010 or 2011 under this new approach of hearing claims on district inquiries—that is, a lot of the large, difficult claims are being broken down into smaller groups. There is a schedule of claims, and the claimant groups are now looking to make considerable progress in relation to their claims.

The Māori Affairs Committee will be travelling to Taranaki tomorrow to hear submissions on the Ngāti Tama settlement. That also was considered to be a reasonably difficult claim to progress, but given that the Ngāti Ruanui people broke through a lot of the attitude barriers that they were confronted with, other Taranaki tribes are now seeking to make that same step. At this point I want to congratulate not just the Minister and staff of the Office of Treaty Settlements but also the people of Taranaki on taking such a huge step.

In the central North Island, a number of claimant groups will be looking to make progress over the next year. It is interesting that the Te Arawa lakes negotiations, while quite intensive, are starting to gain traction, and I am sure that their negotiators will be looking to set a date to sign up to a deed of settlement. I will be talking to them over the next few days to make sure they understand that that needs to happen.

I do not want to boast about this Government’s achievements too much, but, as members will be aware, there are some—

💬 Hon John Tamihere: Special!

Yes, we are a very modest Government, and I am a very modest member, but the achievements of the Labour Government 1 year into its second term are highlighted in the document I have before me. It identifies the area of treaty settlements as quite crucial in terms of the acceleration of Māori development—in particular, those in the central North Island, the people of my electorate, my people of Ngāti Awa, those of Te Arawa, of Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau, and Takitimu.

The report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the 2003-04 estimates for Vote Treaty Negotiations raises several areas of concern, and I urge the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to give serious consideration to them, particularly as most of those concerns were shared by all the committee members.

The manner in which they were discussed in the committee shows, I guess, continuation of bipartisan support for treaty settlements. National, of course, continues strongly to support any and all efforts to settle historical injustices, because until we do that and put those injustices behind us we cannot look forward to building a nation. It is because of that wish that I want to raise in some detail one of the areas we traversed in the select committee. It underpins, I think, how critical it is that the Government understand the need properly to resource all parts of the claims settlement process.

There is no doubt that claimants over the last 4 years, as much as they have wanted to move to negotiations, have shown a strong preference to go to negotiations armed with tribunal findings, or, at least, armed with the historical casebook that shows, by and large, the nature of the breaches. They want their day in court, and the Government needs to keep that firmly in mind. It should underpin the funding decisions that it makes.

This year the Office of Treaty Settlements has received additional funding—and I will come to the two main areas—but the Waitangi Tribunal has not. In my view, that will quickly cause a bit of a bottleneck. I heard Mita Ririnui gloat a little about the Government’s achievements; I will not be churlish, given the discussion that went on earlier with Pete Hodgson in relation to science. If settlements are moving through, that is good. The additional funding this year is mainly to enable the Office of Treaty Settlements to strengthen its negotiating capacity; it includes pre-negotiations, and also includes better integration between the Office of Treaty Settlements and the Waitangi Tribunal. Secondly, the additional funding is to strengthen Crown representation at the Waitangi Tribunal hearings.

The new funding is predicated on increased negotiation activity due to, so we are told, a recent Government commitment to enter negotiations with five central North Island iwi, comprising over 100 claims, and, secondly, the Waitangi Tribunal’s new approach to researching, hearing, and reporting on claims, which has caused it to revise its hearing schedule. The hearing of historical claims will be finished, it thinks, in 2011-12 instead of 2014-15. It has been able to revise that date downward to 2011-12. Again, that is promising.

There is a problem, however. It arises, in National’s view, because there seems to be an assumption that streamlining the tribunal’s process means spending less or the same money. National refutes that assumption. In fact, streamlining the process, which means doing the same thing in a shorter time frame, probably means that more resources need to be applied. I understand that the Government, having put a priority on the central North Island claims, expects that the Waitangi Tribunal will hear the claims in tandem with the negotiations activity. One may ask what happens when the Government has this expectation. The answer is that the Waitangi Tribunal must still do the same amount of work but with the Government’s priority in mind, and it must do it on the same funding that it has had in previous years. So it is going to refocus its resources—in fact, it has had to refocus its resources—on the central North Island claims.

But if it does that, it creates a bit of a bottleneck in terms of the work it already has in progress. I understand that the Gisborne report, which was scheduled to be made public in December last year, is 7 months behind. As of today, those claims have not been reported back. The Tauranga report, which was scheduled to be released midway through this year—and we have now passed to the second half of this year—will now not be out, on current timetabling, until the end of the year. In terms of the Tauranga claim, which has focused on the raupatu question, there was going to be a report, and then it was going to move to the next phase. That cannot now be done. The Hauraki hearings have been put back. Although the Government has increased the funding of the Office of Treaty Settlements to get better settlements, it is absolutely clear that those settlements will not occur in the way that they should. When one claim is given priority, it means that other claims already in the process are put on the backburner.

I know that this is not this Minister’s directresponsibility, but she, like all of us, wants to see these historical claims resolved. I would urge the Government to consider putting equivalent increased funding into the tribunal; otherwise, it will get sorely behind. While the central North Island claimants might feel happy that they are getting priority—and while, as a potential beneficiary of those claims, I might be happy about that—I am not happy for that to happen if it means that claims that have already been in the process for some time, and that came in ahead of the central North Island claims, are now being delayed and put back down the programme.

That is a real issue. The committee has discussed it in its report, and I would ask the Minister to urge her colleague the Minister for Courts to consider giving some additional funding to the tribunal, particularly in the light of the fact that the Government seemed willing enough to pump $6.5 million into her treaty education programme. I guess that the bulk of that will go to consultants to hold more seminars, and the gravy train will grow even bigger, while the poor old tribunal struggles along on limited and meagre funds.

One of the other areas of concern was the policy of settling with “large natural groupings”. Concern was expressed by all members of the committee that the Government must take care not to submerge the interests and the identity of smaller groups, of individual iwi, hapū, and whānau, in its wish to encourage the settlement of claims with “large natural groupings”. Obviously, that is proving to be an issue, and National thinks that some effort should go into that area to make sure that nobody is left on the sidelines. Although settlements are coming through this House, Mita Ririnui and the others know very well—and possibly this will happen tomorrow—that there will always be those who feel that, in the push to settle with the wider grouping, others are left out. That is what we cannot afford in the resolution of these claims.

Lastly, there is the issue of the ratification of settlements and governance entities. It seems that there is reasonable buy-in of claimants to the actual deed of settlement—the settlement itself—but there is real concern, which the committee looked at in some detail, about the lessening proportion of eligible voters buying in to the ratification of their governance entity. We wondered why that was so. Certainly, the issue of resourcing is part of it, and we urge the Minister to look at that area.

For a moment I want to concentrate on the debate on Vote Serious Fraud Office. I rise with a little bit of sadness in one respect, in that when one reads in the estimates some of the work that the Serious Fraud Office is engaged in, and some of the people it is chasing in order to stitch together the lives of some Kiwis who have been done over, it is quite heartbreaking. I know that last year both John Tamihere and I tried to assist a number of people who were ripped off in scams and dodgy investment schemes. They still lost their dough, their life-savings.

In referring to the estimates, I congratulate the Minister in the chair on the Budget for 2003-04 with funding of $5.365 million. One of the primary roles the Serious Fraud Office will be concentrating on, as it always has done, is white-collar fraud. That is something that I know nearly every member in this House would want to stamp out.

💬 Hon John Tamihere: Not ACT, the rort party.

Although the rort party from ACT, of course, may take a different view. I want to—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Possibly, you were not listening, because I am somewhat surprised you did not intercede on what the member who is speaking has just said. Perhaps your attention was distracted, but he accused another party of being the rort party, and made a lot of derogatory statements that are clearly unparliamentary and unacceptable in this Chamber. I would ask that you call upon him to withdraw and apologise. I certainly took offence at the statements he made.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Any reference to a party is taken in the same way as to an individual. If the member has taken offence, under Standing Orders 116 and 117 on personal reflections I ask the member to stand, withdraw, and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. Maybe my language was slightly tough. Maybe I should be more precise. If members look at the trends in the appropriations, in relation to the Serious Fraud Office it is interesting to see the ongoing trends of mortgage frauds and overseas investment scams that continue to feature amongst its work to try to protect New Zealanders. It notes that New Zealanders lose literally millions of dollars a year to overseas investment schemes, despite warnings, and despite the work of the Serious Fraud Office in prosecuting some of those people.

If members look at the money that will be used in this year’s estimates, and then to the statutory management issue that is in process—which I will not allude to, because it would be wrong to do so—in Tauranga, where I believe Mr Shirley lives, from the work Mr Tamihere and I did last year on the Investors International scam I recall in those speeches we said that people must be warned, and the work of the Serious Fraud Office must be reinforced. I recall asking Mr Hide, who participated in the famous Fiji conference—the investment scam conference—why he did not use his position as a member of Parliament to warn people not to be involved in those schemes.

A year later, the same problem is in Tauranga, where I note that millions of dollars have been fleeced out of a community. The funding in the estimates of $5.3 million will be used to chase those criminals out of town. My point is, did Ken Shirley, the ACT party representative here, do anything about that? He lives in the area. No, he did not. I note the $5.3 million that the Serious Fraud Office will use; still my question to Mr Hide is: why did the great scambuster not warn people, use every office he could to warn people not to invest, and warn them that they could be ripped off by those scumbags in those investment schemes.

He remains silent. Yet tonight we see, and over the course of this Parliament, we have seen, that the ACT party is very quick to expose anything Māori, any corruption, or any scam; it is into it. But do ACT party members of Parliament get off their chuffs to assist the Serious Fraud Office? I commend the director of the Serious Fraud Office, who will be charged with actioning the Attorney-General’s $5.3 million spend. I commend David Bradshaw for the work he does. Like any person charged with upholding the law in this country, every citizen’s duty is to assist the police and the law-enforcement agencies. That applies to everybody, especially members of Parliament, except those gurus in the ACT party. If members want to know why, it is patch protection. That is what it is about. If anybody in this House would know about white-collar scams—and Mr Shirley can take this in any way he likes—it would be him and Rodney Hide. They have uncovered a few, that is true, but they are very selective about the ones they uncover, and they do not like it—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Again, I am somewhat surprised that you have not interceded. Clearly, the member has breached a whole succession of the Standing Orders. Furthermore, the specific reference to Rodney Hide has been the subject of a personal statement in this House. The member has been banging away on that now for about a year. He has been brought to order before on it and he continues to breach that. Mr Chairperson, I ask you again to ask him to stand, withdraw, and apologise for his outrageous, unfounded, inaccurate statements that caused offence.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: I was paying very close attention to what the member said. In fact, in the part the member has taken exception to it seems to me that clearly, the member was simply suggesting that Mr Hide and Mr Shirley had indeed engaged themselves in uncovering some scams, but of a selective nature. I cannot see how he can possibly take exception.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I refer to Standing Order 117, which deals with personal reflections. The member has taken offence, and I ask the member on his feet to withdraw.

I withdraw. I want to talk about one point that has been raised about a personal explanation.

I shall speak to a number of the votes—Attorney-General, Serious Fraud, and Treaty Negotiations—and I mention the Serious Fraud Office first. Interestingly enough, one of the people involved in these types of arrangements—mortgage refinancing purchase arrangements—came to see me as a lawyer about 18 months ago. It was fairly obvious that the person, of Fijian extraction, did not understand what was going on. As a lawyer, I told her not to go ahead with it, and she did not go ahead with it. Unfortunately, the situation that arises in many of these cases in west Auckland is that people are up to their limit on their financing; they need to refinance to be able to keep their house. They refinance by way of selling the house to the lender—having what used to be called “equity and redemption”—and the whole situation just falls apart.

Technically, it is not a scam, but, as a lawyer, I advised my client not to go ahead with it. Sadly, she was so over-financed that there was a mortgagee sale anyway. I just make that point. Of course, as far as the ACT party is concerned, and as far as the Labour Party is concerned, I am sure there is no one in the ACT party who has pleaded guilty to fraud.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: No.

There is no one in the ACT party who has pleaded guilty to fraud—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Or uttering.

—or uttering, and had that conviction discharged by the court. I am sure there is no one in the ACT party who has pleaded guilty and had an initial conviction for fraud.

Going back to the estimates, all I can say is that from New Zealand First’s point of view we have an absolutely hopeless Attorney-General in the Chamber tonight. As we all know, the role of an Attorney-General, by convention, is that the person must exercise independent judgment impartially, without exceptions for party political goals; the incumbent should be free of any compromising portfolio or policy obligations, although it is permissible for the Attorney-General to consult Cabinet colleagues on issues having political implications. Does this Attorney-General come within these categories? Of course she does not. She holds other Cabinet portfolios and takes an interest, especially, in items like the Supreme Court Bill, which are mentioned in the estimates. As a member of the select committee, I asked her what sort of consensus there was amongst Māori people for support for the Privy Council.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: What would you know about that?

We got a letter from the Attorney-General, which I will read to that honourable member. That letter, dated 23 September 2002, referred to various meetings: “These meetings resulted in a general consensus that the time is right to remove appeals to the Privy Council and establish a court of final appeal.” She was saying that that is what the Māori people of New Zealand had said at those various meetings. Now, we know that that is very far from the truth, because submission after submission to the select committee has indicated that that is not the case. Up and down this country Ngāi Tahu do not agree. They say they want constitutional change before any consideration is given to the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council. This Minister misled, I believe, the select committee at the time last year, and continues to do so.

We were told that the thing we should do is go to the hui at Turangi over the weekend, and we would get the real indication from them, and that we in the select committee, and New Zealand First, would be proved wrong. So what do we get from the hui report, which I have read, and I am sure members of the Labour Party do not even know exists? I shall quote from some of the answers regarding the final Court of Appeal: “Important issues require wider debate within Māoridom”; “Lack of information sharing at the Auckland hui”—the one to which the Minister referred; “Dissatisfied with consultation”; “No adequate consultation on bill. Consultation was bad. There was no notice. Need to go back to people, hapū, iwi.” That is the message to the Minister; and the Associate Minister of Māori Affairs supports the view that we should have much wider consultation on this bill. It is clear that the select committee was misled by this Minister last year, and the Labour members, especially the Māori members, I am sure, are now greatly concerned about the trend being taken in this legislation.

As far as Vote Treaty Negotiations is concerned, we have been talking about the year 2014 tonight! The answers we have been getting from the Minister in the chair on this issue indicate that it will be hundreds of years before the young Māori lad in Otara, or up in Whangarei, or in Porirua ever sees a fish, or a dollar, or anything. All the money is going to the consultants; all the money is going to the lawyers, as I know from the way in which lawyers charge; and it is going to those people who get up there, run around, get briefs as bureaucrats, sit on the tribunal, and collect all the money. This situation will go on for ever. It is a disgrace, and New Zealand First is going to do something about it.

I would like to make a few comments on the matters that have been raised in the estimates debate. First, I would like to add my compliments to the Serious Fraud Office on the very good work it does, and the fact that it has been warning the select committee of an increase in the number of scams. At times the select committee has been perhaps a little distracted, if I may say, with events of the past, but that warning has been heard, and taken up by this Government, and it is consistent with the approach of the Serious Fraud Office, which is a pre-emptive approach to the issue; it has sought and received some extra funding in its investigations.

I might also touch on a second matter that has been raised by the member from the New Zealand First Party on the Supreme Court. Of course there are various views within Māoridom. The correspondence the member referred to was obviously in that time and context. There have been continuing discussions and debate, of which he has been part but which he obviously did not put in the context of the written communication he had, which was some time ago. Why should people in the Māori community all be of one mind? Certainly people in the Pākehā-European community, and people in other communities in our society, are not of one mind. So it is really important that we get the diversity of views.

It is just a pity that the member did not take advantage of the opportunity to join us on the weekend—a beautiful weekend in Taupo—to be able to get, for the full 3 days, the absolute benefit for that total time, rather than dipping out of the issue to suit one’s own position.

I want to make my substantive comments relating to the portfolio in the estimates debate on treaty negotiations, and I wish to acknowledge the comments made by my colleague the Hon Georgina te Heuheu, and say that I do appreciate her acknowledgment that there is a bipartisan support for the settlement of historical grievance process. I appreciated that, and took her comments on that process in the spirit of those who wish to ensure the claims are settled as quickly as possible.

I draw the previous speaker’s attention to what was in the estimates. As members are aware, the Crown’s objective has been to settle historical grievances in a timely fashion, but it recognises that if we try to hurry this process artificially, as the fiscal envelope process attempted to do, we will delay what will be full and final, and what we would call “durable settlements”, which is what we intend to achieve.

It is important to realise that in the estimates, increased funding was given in support of this process, and two particular output classes are relevant to this debate. The first is funding that assists the claimants to enter negotiations—negotiations with the claimants on behalf of the Crown—and, second, the implementation of those agreed settlements. It is important to acknowledge that $895,000 has been allocated, in addition. We have now an increased level of funding so that the negotiation activity can be consistent with the number of claimants who are entering into the process.

It is important to acknowledge that whereas 12 months ago the funding was given to set up claimant development teams—and that was important at the time, to assist claimants to be able to get to the position of negotiations—this year, the success of that process means we need additional funding for the actual negotiations. Therefore the funding will be directed to assist those in the negotiating process. So the increased funding means, in practical terms, that the Office of Treaty Settlements can establish a further negotiating team, and that, I think, demonstrates our commitment to that process.

I also would draw members’ attention to the second output class, and that is representation of the Crown before the Waitangi Tribunal. I acknowledge the comments of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu in this respect. It is important to understand that just funding to the tribunal itself will not necessarily increase the process. What was important, we found in the analysis into how we increase the timeliness of the tribunal’s capacity to be able to hear and produce reports, is that that is to a large extent dependent upon the input from the Crown into that process. Therefore the output class has increased by $302,000, and that is funding that will go to the Crown to ensure that our funding will enable us to not delay the tribunal in its hearing of claims that come before it.

It is also important to acknowledge the progress that has been made, and although my colleague Mita Ririnui has made some reference to this, it probably does bear some repetition. The first point is that we have made significant progress in the Taranaki claims, and what that means is at times somewhat forgotten. Not only have we settled Ngāti Ruanui, and we have Ngāti Tama’s bill before the select committee, but also we are making considerable progress with Ngā Rauru, and Ngāti Mutunga has come into negotiations again. So we should see a timely settlement there. Most important, the Whanganui River Māori are also entering negotiations with us.

Progress has been made in the Bay of Plenty, the central North Island, and in other parts of the country, particularly Auckland and Northland. It is important because people are beginning to realise that this is a comprehensive thrust on the settlement of claims, and not just a settlement in one region. At the moment I notice that the focus has been on the central North Island, and although that is important, it is not draining resources from other areas, because that has been factored into our planning. If the mandating process is successful, then over 100 claims will be able to be settled through that particular negotiation; that does not mean we are not attending to the needs of Ngāti Whātua o Orakei in Auckland or Te Rarawa in the north, or Te Arawa in terms of the lakes claims. All those claims are proceeding at the same time.

The honourable member Georgina te Heuheu did raise some issues that were raised at the select committee and were heard by the Government in terms of its approach to this. We tried to explain in some detail, and with a great deal of transparency, the process that we are following here. Certainly, we are always open to ways we can improve it. But the truth is that on issues like large natural groupings—and such issues were raised by members of the select committee—one cannot in fact have every particular claim, particularly every whanau claim, settled individually and, at the same time, argue that there should be a timely settlement of all claims. That lies behind the large natural groupings policy of the Crown and why we do not enter into negotiations with claimants until we get a consensus on what that grouping should be. I agree that ratification rates should be higher in some instances, but in other instances it is very high, so the question is whether there is evidence of uneven ratification numbers in that respect.

Finally, a great deal of discussion was had at the hui on the weekend as to how we can improve the governance arrangements, and the Crown was certainly open to hearing how we can ensure we get the resources that will come through the historical process of settlement of claims to the beneficiaries, which is the ultimate purpose of this process. So I would argue in this estimates debate that the Crown is placing its resources where they are most needed.

Vote Attorney General agreed to.

Vote Labour agreed to.

Vote Parliamentary Counsel agreed to.

Vote Serious Fraud agreed to.