Estimates Debate — Vote Treaty Negotiations

This vote must be one of the truly great embarrassments for the current Government. While there is an overwhelming desire among all sectors of New Zealand to see treaty issues settled fairly and justly and at a speedy pace, the Government has not made any effort to progress the great work of Doug Graham during the 1990s. Rather, it has slid along on the coat-tails of the work that Doug Graham did, and in fact has achieved very, very little. What bothers us is that while all of this is happening the Government is about to pass legislation, with the help of other parties, including the hopelessly directionless New Zealand First, to put in place seabed and foreshore legislation that will see the treaty grievance industry considerably enhanced—well, not enhanced; in fact, it will see it grow at an alarming rate.

I ask the Minister whether there is any explanation for the fact that the proposal for next year is to settle just $31 million worth of settlements. That is certainly a lot of money, but in the overall context of treaty settlements it is a very, very small amount, indicating that not much work is being done. I would also like to have some explanation of why the Government claims to have settled so many treaty negotiations, when, in fact, they were started under the watch of Sir Doug Graham. That was 5 years ago. We have had 5 years of Māori being pushed to the back and told that their interest is not that of the Government, and that they will simply have to wait for their settlement time to come. Where is the additional resourcing for the Waitangi Tribunal that might see some of these matters dealt with before my children are old enough to vote in parliamentary elections, or, indeed, to stand in this House to consider legislation on these matters? We are simply shuffling things around a bit and leaving them for future generations.

The question must be how long the fiscal cap will hold in place. How long will it be before various tribes start saying: “What you’re offering us in the year 2005, 2006, or 2007 is not enough, because it is based on a figure that was struck in 1990, some 15 years ago.”? We learnt recently that the income disparity between Māori and non-Māori in this country is of such a magnitude that if at any point the two figures were to be brought together, then, over a 10-year period, an additional $45 billion would be delivered to Māori New Zealand families—families that would be participating in the wider New Zealand economy. The fiscal parameters around the treaty settlements and any fisheries settlements amount to just on $2 billion. What we cannot understand is why we would not want to get that capital into the hands of those who can make a difference with it, so that the whole country can benefit from those larger incomes, and so the infrastructure of New Zealand in terms of social services, educational services, and health services can be enhanced by virtue of fewer people at the bottom end being so far away from the average income.

So this is a very, very sad record that the Labour Government has totalled up. It really does speak of the neglect it has inflicted upon Māori in this country, who are well-meaning in most of these cases, and simply want to get on with their lives, to remedy past injustices, and to move forward.

💬 Darren Hughes: Has your leader benefited?

Let us make it very clear that when Don Brash said in his Ōrewa speech that he wanted to take out undue references to the Treaty of Waitangi from legislation, he was very much defining the difference between National and Labour. I tell Mr Hughes that we are not interested in putting flash words into legislation that confuse people; we are interested in making a difference to the lives of New Zealanders who want to get on with it. Treaty grievances are, by and large, understood. People know when there was a bad deal, and they want a better deal. They will not get it, of course, until this Government has gone.

I want to report on the Māori Affairs Committee report on the progress of treaty negotiations. In this year’s report we note two things. Page 4 states: “Some of us remain concerned at the suitability of staff to conduct negotiations with senior tribal leaders. In particular, we note that OTS does not regularly engage lead negotiators who have equivalent community standing.” The Minister may well think that it is only the National Party that says that. I can tell her that that sentiment is shared by her colleagues, the Māori members who represent the various Māori seats that Labour holds. It is a widespread concern. The trouble is that we have a Minister who thinks that treaty negotiations are best conducted by a policy of benign neglect—that she can leave it to the Office of Treaty Settlements, and occasionally helicopter in to sign a document or deliver an apology. Well, that does not work. What is required is an intensive, ongoing effort by the Government, with a Minister actively seized of the negotiating process.

We know that the Minister prefers the area of labour relations. We know that she prefers—although perhaps not this week—issues to do with the Supreme Court. The one area of her responsibilities that is perhaps more important for the future of the country than any other is concluding the treaty settlement process. The reason we say “concluding” is that it is about actually unifying and healing the nation. Whilst we remain a nation in the middle of the treaty settlement process, we will, to a large extent, remain divided. We have only to look at the example of Ngāi Tahu, in particular—but there are others, as well—to see that once the settlement process is complete, there is a bringing together of communities. That is what is required, and it is what the Government has simply failed to understand. That is why Dr Brash, at Ōrewa, talked about the need to complete the settlement process.

We have made an undertaking that we will complete the settlement process in 5 years. That means a new way of thinking. It means new and fresh approaches to dealing with the process. Some of that does involve getting high-powered, highly qualified, well-respected people—senior people whom iwi negotiators will respect, and whom they will understand and be able to deal with—to speed the process. That is what occurred in the 1990s. It also involves the Minister taking a keen interest, and being closely involved, in the process. For instance, back in 1999 the then Minister, Sir Douglas Graham, was able to complete five heads of agreement with five Taranaki iwi. We are 5 years down the track, and not all of those are yet even into legislation. Last month I issued a press release, in which I said that in the space of 5 years Parliament had passed only four Treaty of Waitangi settlement Acts. The Minister clearly did not read that release accurately, because she claimed that I was wrong and that the Government had many other things in train, as well. I guess it does have things in train, but she could not say that, in terms of the legislation—the final event that actually creates the settlement itself—there were any more than four settlements. I know that the Minister says—and I would like her to take a call—that she has legislation afoot to put to Parliament to settle some Taranaki iwi claims, and we will support that, because we have been waiting a long, long time for it to occur.

We on the Opposition side of the Chamber are concerned to see the relatively low level of the vote for treaty settlements over previous years, ranging from a high of $60 million. It is noteworthy that that was in 1999-2000. Since then, it has been down to $27 million, $31 million, and so forth. That represents the slow pace and low number of settlements. The fact that the vote has collapsed to such an extent shows how woefully behind the pace the Government is. The Government has said that it believes the process can be completed in 15 years’ time. We have asked that question of the Office of Treaty Settlements—and, indeed, of the Minister when she appeared before the select committee—numerous times. Each time, the answer has been that it would require 15 years, give or take a few years. Fifteen years has been the consistent answer.

Well, that answer has been given now for 5 years. What that means, of course, is that in the Government’s mind its framework has already been extended out to 2020. I recall—and the Minister herself should recall—a time when she and the Office of Treaty Settlements were talking about 2012-15. That is what she said in 2001. But today we are talking about 2020—effectively 15 years down the track. So it was not surprising that, when the chief executive of the Office of Treaty Settlements was challenged on the slow pace of the settlements, he started talking about time frames and the need to put in some shape. One got the fundamental impression of a degree of frustration creeping into the office, because it has a Minister who simply does not care and does not take the focused effort that is necessary to expedite the process.

It is for the benefit of the country to conclude these settlements. I say it is for the benefit of the country, but perhaps more significantly—and the Minister of Māori Affairs certainly knows this—it is for the benefit of Māori themselves. Part of concluding the settlement process is not just the restoration of particular assets or sums of money. It is the sense of restoration of the iwi—the sense of iwi pride—that is an important part of people’s development. Those of us—and I presume this includes the Minister—who have gone to various iwi that have completed settlements and have moved into looking at the opportunities for the future can see the advantages that have resulted from those settlements. We can see that those iwi have been able to provide funds for students to attend universities and polytechnics, and to provide a whole range of services and facilities for the members of the iwi. The process and completion of the settlement is an inherent part of building capability and capacity within the Māori people. The money itself is not the critical issue, because in reality it will never be enough to give individuals a real opportunity to close the gaps. But what it does do is to heal the spirit. Once that is done, the development of people can be advanced. That is precisely where the Government has failed to seize the opportunity.

There will come an opportunity in 12 months’ time, when the public will get to choose which party it prefers to do the real business of concluding settlements that are to the benefit of this country. I would have to say that, based on the Government’s lackadaisical and lazy progress to date, Labour will not be the preferred choice.

This is an estimates debate, so I think it is appropriate to record that the recent Budget saw an increase of $1.2 million for treaty negotiations. That does not include any extra funding that would have gone to the Waitangi Tribunal, and the support that we have given there. I have listened with interest, as I always do, to the comments of my colleagues in the Opposition. They certainly do give truth to the cliché that National is really quite brave when it is in Opposition, but when one examines its record from the nearly 10 years when it had the opportunity to do something about treaty settlements, one finds it was rather poor.

I, unfortunately, have had the position as the current Minister of having to clean up the mess that was left behind by the previous Government. That is one of the difficulties one has with the Ngāi Tahu settlement, which is much vaunted—and a very good settlement it was. But the fact that we are only now starting to implement it is a classic example of how if one rushes to judgment, so to speak, one repents for quite some time. The Tainui claim, of course, was settled by National—or was it? The easy bits were. The previous Government left all the hard bits, because it is Labour that cleans up the mess. Then we come to the Whakatōhea and the Te Ātiawa settlements. Those were great examples of the National Party’s approach to treaty settlements: to get there and tell people what to do. When Māori got an opportunity to speak for themselves, they said “wait, wait”. That is exactly what happened.

We are about to be treated to a new policy, called the fiscal envelope policy, that will undoubtedly be presented by the National Party at the next election. We will look forward with interest to see the next series of disasters that National will create in terms of imposing its will upon claimant groups, without taking into consideration the most essential aspect of the whole treaty settlement process: that it must be done in a way that takes account of the wishes of both parties—not only the wishes of the Crown, which has been the National Party’s approach to the issue as it imposed its will on claimants. We have gone into genuine negotiations with claimant groups. Yes, it does take longer than imposing the Crown’s wishes on claimants, but we have done that because we want to have lasting and durable settlements.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Are you suggesting Ngāi Tahu—

Some of those settlements that the member talks about are now being reopened—not Ngāi Tahu’s, but I am told that some of the other settlements were not quite as full and final as they should have been. Perhaps the detail was not actually attended to by the previous Government. We have fine rhetoric from National, but when it comes to the hard work and the professional approach needed to get fair and durable settlements, its record is absolutely abysmal.

We are engaged now with over 25 claimant groups. In recent days we have had the Prime Minister’s apology, and I did not note that the honourable members were there to back up their fine words when the apology was given to Te Uri o Hau.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: They didn’t invite us.

The members should not have needed an invitation. If they were so concerned for claimants they would have been there—no problem, at all.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: No respect.

Precisely. The Opposition has no respect for the claimant group, or for the fact that you are part of the Crown and you should have been there to be represented at the same time as the Government. But you walked away—

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker—

I am sorry; I apologise. National walked away.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. My complaint, Sir, is not against the Attorney-General and Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, who has apologised. My complaint is against the chief Government whip, who consistently browbeats someone who tries to take a point of order. I do not want to be particularly pedantic, but I think it was a bit rich—[Interruption] Now we have the Minister of Māori Affairs, Parekura Horomia, interfering on a point of order. I think you should suggest to the chief Government whip that she lets Parliament deal with Parliament and does not always scream out across the Chamber like a demented hen, as she tries to stop MPs from taking legitimate points of order. Surely you would agree that standing up to protect the Chair is a responsible thing to do, without having Jill Pettis screaming out.

💬 Jill Pettis: Speaking to the point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No, I do not need any help on this matter, thank you very much. You are quite right, Mr Hide, and I hope the Committee will take notice of that.

I take the point, and I apologise to the Chair. The point I was making was that if National was serious and genuine about its concern for claimants, it would have a united approach to the settlement of grievances. Certainly, this Government has tried to work with the precedents that were established by the previous Government, in the interests of certainty. We have tried to do that as well as we can, because we saw that this process is bigger than either of us—in fact, it is important to the whole country. It saddens me that we have a debate like this that comes down to personal attacks, instead of looking to be able to resolve those differences.

Vote agreed to.

Vote Māori Affairs