Estimates Debate — Vote Treaty Negotiations

It is perhaps on the issue of treaty negotiations that Labour has been most spectacular in demonstrating its incapacity to govern appropriately. The template for treaty negotiations was set down during the 1990s, and is widely accepted by the vast majority of the New Zealand population. New Zealanders, we are often told, are fair people—and they are. They do know that where there is a grievance and it is settled, then there is progress. [Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I cannot speak while a conversation is going on 2 feet in front of me.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Your point is taken, Mr Brownlee. Perhaps the conversation with the Clerk could be held to one side. You have not lost any time, Mr Brownlee.

I look at the entries in the Government’s books for treaty negotiations and see that little has changed over the years, and that is good. It means that the fiscal envelope set by the National Government some 15 years ago has still not been exceeded. That, I think, is a tribute to the process that was originally put in place through Mr Bolger, the then Prime Minister, and the Rt Hon Doug Graham. Many people ask about all the money that is going to Māori and wonder why they should get it. The reality is that we were pouring money back in the early 1990s, through the Māori Affairs Department, into all sorts of programmes that never benefited people directly, or as directly as the treaty settlements do.

The thing that I find most interesting here—and I want to receive an answer from the Minister on this—is under the heading “Sector Outcomes and the Ministry’s Intermediate Outcomes”. Before I go on to that, I want the Minister to tell us why the Government appointed two new people to the Waitangi Tribunal almost 12 months ago who have yet to hear any historical grievance. An answer from the Government would be good, if we can get one. Why are people currently being appointed to the Waitangi Tribunal who do not have any caseload allocated to them?

I now go back to the other issue, under the heading “Sector Outcomes and the Ministry’s Intermediate Outcomes”, which states: “a fairer, more credible and more effective justice system, being a system in which people’s interactions are underpinned by the rule of law and justice services are more equitable, credible and accessible.” Why does that have to be a goal for the Office of Treaty Settlements? I would have thought that that goal was something we would want for all New Zealanders. That is a perfect demonstration of how the Labour Party is out there with a message that would tell one audience that it is taking a lot of race-based stuff out of its programmes, but then it quietly slips this sort of thing into the Government accounts. I would have thought that the Office of Treaty Settlements was just about negotiating the settlement of grievances, and would not have that wider social objective. I would hope that the Minister may be able to give us an answer on that.

Another objective set for the Office of Treaty Settlements is safer communities. Those communities are described as those “in which there is reduced crime and in which safety and wellbeing is enhanced through partnerships …”. What does that state? Does it state that this Government believes that much of the criminal element in this country resides amongst those people who are harbouring an unresolved treaty grievance? That is how it reads to me, and that has to be an utter nonsense. Safer communities are what all New Zealanders should expect. To state that a safer community is one where there is reduced youth offending, reduced offending by Māori, reduced violence, reduced family violence, a reduced number of burglaries, reduced organised crime, and reduced theft of, and from, cars is something that all New Zealanders want. I want to know whether the Labour Government seriously believes that those things can be achieved through the process of treaty negotiations. That just seems to me to be an utter nonsense. So I would like the Minister to take a call, to explain what that means.