Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:14728] 
8.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Is the Government considering a deadline for lodging Treaty of Waitangi claims and is her position still “I neither support nor don’t support” the idea? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 As was indicated by the Hon Margaret Wilson in a press release on 21 July 2004 proposals are being considered to streamline historical Treaty of Waitangi settlements including a time line on lodging claims. Decisions are not yet taken. 
Rodney Hide 
: How is it possible for there to be any finality to treaty claims as long as we have a Government that agrees with the Deputy Prime Minister that the treaty is a “living document where new applications or implications may arise as circumstances change”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Deputy Prime Minister was extraordinarily well informed and perceptive on that matter. What the previous question referred to primarily and what my answer referred to was historical settlements and a time line on those. Contemporary claims may arise as circumstances change. 
Jill Pettis 
: What progress has the Government made in settling historical treaty claims? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government has settled the following claims: Te Uri o Hau NgatiRuanui Ngati Tama Ngati Awa NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty and Nga Rauru. We have recognised the mandates of three other iwi claimants and have signed terms of negotiation with four other iwi claimants. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How can anybody think the Government is serious about proposing a deadline for the lodging of treaty claims when its record is that in the last 5 years it has managed to pass only four Treaty of Waitangi settlement Acts? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member will know that there is a lengthy process around such claims running through mandating tribunal reports negotiations and legislation. However if the member cares to wait tomorrow he will see another treaty claims bill being presented to the House for introduction. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Prime Minister support the statement by the Hon Margaret Wilson in response to Mr Rodney Hide’s bill on a time limit for treaty settlements that: “The bill is a typical ACT quick fix. Let’s ignore that it’s about partnership that it’s about negotiation and that the other partner may have some rights in that process.”; and can she explain how that member’s bill is or was different from the reports that her Cabinet will impose time limits on treaty settlements without negotiation with those partners? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Certainly the second part of the question was in order. The first part was a bit doubtful but I will allow the Minister to comment. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There is a very large difference between thinking of a time limit on the lodging of claims and a time limit on the settlement of those claims. It is now nearly 20 years since the ability to lodge historical claims became open. It is not possible to set a time limit on settlement because that would be unfair to the process. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: If the Government is now considering the introduction of a time limit for the lodging of claims—and I am just picking up on the last answer given by the Minister—what is its view regarding a timetable for the settlement of claims that are lodged and is it moving to try to speed up that process in any particular way? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Taking the latter point I say that we have already approved the funding for an additional treaty claims settlement team and that has helped to accelerate the process already. We are making significant progress on the central North Island issue but there are mandating problems there which are really what is holding up the process. The Prime Minister and the Minister have said before that the 10 to 15 year time frame for settling historical treaty claims is realistic but it would not be possible to sensibly set such a rigid time frame in the same way that it is not possible to set such a rigid budget for the settlement of treaty claims. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: What has led the Prime Minister to change her mind on the issue of the proposal to establish a deadline for lodging Treaty of Waitangi claims when it was condemned by her when first advocated by the ACT party several years ago? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: My understanding is that the rejection has been on the issue of a deadline for settlement rather than for lodging claims. However there are still important issues to think through in terms of whether such a fixed and rigid deadline should be set and whether that would be a positive or a negative in terms of actually achieving a successful process around the settlement of treaty claims. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In answering that question the Minister actually changed the question and then answered the question he had changed it to. My question was quite specific about the ACT party first proposing that there be a time limit on the lodging of treaty claims. The Minister then referred to settlement and answered that part. I would like him to address the question that was asked please. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was his understanding. He is entitled to take that interpretation if he wishes. I cannot judge that as long as he addresses the question. 
Rodney Hide 
: Just so that we can be clear on the issue is the Government now considering a deadline for historical claims and notwithstanding that will it allow new and innovative claims to be made and would the only way to end the treaty grievance industry be to vote Labour out of office? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. What it is true to say is that contemporary claims arise out of changing circumstances. If the member wishes to end any possibility of future contemporary treaty claims he will have to find a way legally to rescind the treaty. I wish him well in trying to attempt that.