Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:608;Page:5992] 
8.  
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: When the Hon Margaret Wilson on her behalf said yesterday that “the Government will consider the report and the recommendations from the tribunal” does this mean that the Government may still accept a claim by Maori for compensation regarding petroleum; if not why did she make this statement? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: No the Government will consider the tribunal’s report because it has implications for the settlement process beyond the specific issues of using petroleum as compensation in Taranaki. Also I see no reason on the evidence and the advice I have to change the position relating to compensation regarding petroleum. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: When the Prime Minister said that the issue of contemporary claims “should be parked as an issue for another day” and also: “We cannot deal with this at this time.” will she now after 2½ years deal with the issue and tell Maori and the whole of New Zealand what Labour’s position is on contemporary claims for natural resources such as petroleum? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The report deals with petroleum and Crown minerals in a historical context; it does not deal with it in a contemporary claim context. We are however looking at the issue of contemporary claims at the moment. 
Jill Pettis 
: What are the other implications of the tribunal’s petroleum report? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The report has introduced the new notion of a treaty interest the meaning and extent of which need to be understood better. This notion appears to suggest that settlements agreed by claimants and the Crown should not be full and final and could be revisited in certain circumstances. 
Stephen Franks 
: What criteria are applied by the Government in assessing the national or public interest affected by treaty claims whether contemporary or historical and for how long have these principles been applied? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The principles have been applied in terms of certainly petroleum since 1937 but it is the Crown Minerals Act that contains the provision relating to the Crown use of Crown minerals. In other words this is also being incorporated in the Government’s Crown principles governing the negotiation of historical settlements. There is a section at page 94 stating quite clearly that natural resources are not available for general use in settlements in the way that cash or surplus lands are. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Prime Minister stand by Michael Cullen’s statement in April: “It genuinely makes the treaty a living document when new applications or implications may rise as circumstances change.”; if so how is that consistent with the Government’s treaty settlement policy that all settlements are final and cannot be reviewed to take account of those new applications or implications such as petroleum resources? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is that the full and final settlement relates to the negotiation of the historical claims and grievances that have been recognised and incorporated in the deed and in legislation. So it relates to that; it is an agreed position. Within that is an acknowledgment that Crown minerals are not the subject of compensation in terms of cash or land. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does the Minister’s last answer mean that although it is the Government’s position that all settlements to date are full and final there is now an opportunity for that provision to be reviewed in what was described in the report as “contemporary settlements”; if so what are the implications of that? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The tribunal’s report appears to argue not that contemporary issues should reopen historical settlements but that historical settlements should be reopened for this matter relating to royalties for Crown minerals. In other words the Government needs to consider the tribunal’s report further because it appears to relate to historical settlements that have already been settled with the agreement of both parties. That is why the significance of this report is taking some time to work through. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Hon Margaret Wilson’s comments that the tribunal has seen fit “to extend the jurisprudence in this area by creating a new concept of treaty interest”; if she does agree with those comments will the Government support the new concept of treaty interests; if so how? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes the Prime Minister does agree with the Hon Margaret Wilson’s comments. That is precisely why we as a Government are taking time to consider the implication of that precise issue of what is meant by “treaty interests”. 
Stephen Franks 
: I return to my previous supplementary question to the Prime Minister and I ask about the criteria as applied in the national or public interest generally not just petroleum— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member is foreshadowing his question by a long explanatory statement about his previous question. He is there to ask a question not to explain what he meant the first time around. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would like the member to come to the question. I am sure he can rephrase it. 
Stephen Franks 
: What criteria or factors are applied in the national or public interest test generally and if claim settlements need not all be in the public interest why not? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: My understanding is that the “national interest” means “in the interests of all sections of the community” and it has been declared that Crown minerals are for the use of the whole community. Crown minerals have been assessed as having those criteria of being in the national interest in terms of their use. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Will the Prime Minister today rule out compensation for royalties or for a share of ongoing royalties being given by her Government to Maori claimants; if not why not? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: It would be foolish to give an absolute assurance without an opportunity to consider the report totally and fully. Only a fool would do that and this Government has no fools. However as I have said there is nothing that I have seen or been advised about that would lead me to believe that royalties should be paid in this instance at all. 
Stephen Franks 
: If national interest factors mean that an expropriation can be made without compensation to those contributing to the national interest what factors allowed the Prime Minister to decide to ask that the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) include ancestral and cultural landscapes effectively nationalising from their owners without compensation parts of their land in breach of article 2 of the treaty? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I fail to understand the direct relevance of that question to the subject matter of the original question.