Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:619;Page:14929] 
1. 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: What methods are being considered in order to “streamline Treaty of Waitangi historic settlements” as stated in her press release of 21 July 2004 and why has the Government now decided that streamlining the process is necessary? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is enough. Anything more like that and people will be having an early shower. That is the only warning today. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: Firstly the Government is considering ways to simplify settlement legislation so that once settlements are agreed they can be implemented faster and more easily; secondly it is exploring the possibility of enabling legislation to make it easier for Maori groups to establish robust post-settlement governance entities; and thirdly it is looking at ongoing work surrounding their lodging of claims with the tribunal. This is all part of ongoing work to try to make the settlement process more efficient. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Minister stand by her statement that placing a time limit on filing historic treaty claims is “out of touch and ignores the complexity of the treaty settlement process”; if so why has the Government completely changed its position to consider just such a time limit? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It has not which is probably why the Government is ahead in the polls. In November 2002 the Minister responding in the House made that statement. She was referring to the attempt to place an artificial deadline on the settlement of claims. She still holds the view that that is a stupid idea which is not surprising given where it comes from. 
Jill Pettis 
: In line with the Government’s policy of constant review what other examples have there been—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have already warned members once and said it was a final warning. Now on this occasion I am going to be very generous and far too soft on issues like this. This is the one and only time I am not going to send the member out. No comments are to be made during the asking of questions. That is a democratic right. Please start again. 
Jill Pettis 
: In line with the Government’s policy of constant review what other examples have there been of changes to the treaty settlement process in order to make it more efficient? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We have committed more resources to the treaty settlement process—in particular a complete additional negotiating team. That is why we are now in active negotiations with 12 claimant groups and in active discussions with another 15 groups which is far higher than levels during the 1990s. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it not a fact that given the current speed of settlements of Waitangi settlements it will take another 584 years which is astonishing given that in 1990 Jim Bolger promised to finish everything up by the end of the decade? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No but even if it were true I doubt that the National Government would be any part of that during 584 years. 
Metiria Turei 
: Can the Minister describe to the House the round-table partnership negotiations she has had with all future claimants about the streamlining process and the 10 to 15-year time frame or is it simply that this policy results from Labour’s increasing reliance on National for policy direction on issues concerning Maori and the treaty? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister may answer in so far as this relates to his portfolio. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the member has managed simultaneously to insult both the Labour Party and the National Party with that comment. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think they both deserve to be insulted but let us have an answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of the point of order is out of order but the point made is correct. Please answer. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Minister and the Prime Minister both indicated a possible indicative timetable for the settlement process. The issue that is actually under discussion actively at the present time is whether there should be a timetabling limit in terms of the lodging of claims. 
Tariana Turia 
: The tino rangatiratanga side of the partnership under the treaty would welcome early resolution of the ill-effects of the dishonouring of the Treaty of Waitangi— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please ask the question. 
Tariana Turia 
: What steps are proposed in the expedition of the resolution of these effects to ensure that the quality of the partnership between kawanatanga and the rangatiratanga is enhanced and maintained? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Each treaty settlement is in and of itself a separate case and has to be treated on that basis and it may point to ongoing discussions of partnership between that particular iwi or hapu and the Government. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: How much credibility should the House give to statements from the Minister such as the one in the question that the treaty process is being streamlined or the press statement issued by the Minister on Tuesday 27 July where she claimed: “Recent progress in treaty settlements confirms my prediction that the vast majority of claims will be settled within 10 to 15 years.” against the statement made by the Waitangi Tribunal on 27 September that this Government has actually been in breach of its undertakings with regard to the Te Arawa settlement? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On the latter matter there are ongoing discussions and announcements to be made but in general terms I would say I prefer the comments made by the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to those of the Waitangi Tribunal on a number of instances. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Minister agree with the Deputy Prime Minister’s view that “strictly speaking the Treaty proper exists only in its Maori version”; if so how does that affect the treaty claims process given the Deputy Prime Minister’s further view that according to the Maori version of the treaty Maori did not cede sovereignty? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think if the member cares to re-analyse the Deputy Prime Minister’s statements in the latter respect he will find they are a little bit more subtle than he indicated in that brief summary. I am assured that the Deputy Prime Minister was expressing his view as a historian—as I believe that member occasionally still claims to be an economist although not in Australia—that in fact the notion of sovereignty as expressed in British understanding in 1840 can scarcely have been understood by those people signing the treaty in 1840. The fact of the matter is that Maori signed a version of the treaty that was in Maori in 1840. International law is quite clear that where there is a conflict between the native language version and the version that was signed priority is given to the interpretation based on the native language version. The member may not like that but it is a reasonable fact. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that the deadline on treaty claims is a bumper sticker solution which will only pitch New Zealand into a new cycle of grievances and claims; if not what comments has the Minister received from the Prime Minister regarding her own proposed treaty time limits? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The difference is the difference between a time limit on the lodging of treaty claims—which does not seem entirely unreasonable given the fact that by the time it would be over more than 20 years would have passed since the amending legislation—and the settlement of all claims which is not entirely in the hands of the Crown. 
Dail Jones 
: Referring to the Deputy Prime Minister’s answer about the interpretation of treaties is he familiar with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which does not support his contention of the way in which treaties should be interpreted and more recently Brownlie’s most authoritative book on the subject which makes it clear that the so-called contra proferentem rule on which he relies is no longer a factor to be taken into account in the interpretation of treaties? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am familiar with that but not to entrench upon other matters on which I have commented recently I have a strong suspicion New Zealand courts might hold the view that the Maori version would have a very high level of priority.