Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions Questions to Members 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:16005] 
5.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: Why did the Government make the offer to transfer title of Rotorua lake beds to Te Arawa in 2001 when the matter of lake bed ownership was dealt with in 1922 and the chairman of Te Arawa Maori Trust Board reportedly said the iwi had not even begun negotiations about the lakes’ ownership when the offer suddenly arrived on his desk? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 The Government decided to continue the negotiations begun by National. Those grievances included not only the 1922 agreement; it was not confined to that agreement. It was larger than just the issue relating to that agreement. From the outset of the negotiations Te Arawa negotiators have sought the return of the lake beds. They cited as precedents for that return of the lake beds the NgaiTahu settlement and also the Tuwharetoa Lake Taupo settlements. It is apparent from National members and Ministers’ correspondence in the early 1990s that the return of the lake beds was an option. Unfortunately I have been unable to verify the statement by the former chair of the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: When the Minister decided to offer the lake beds of the 13 Rotorua lakes back to Te Arawa could she cite any occasion where a lake given back to Maori had previously been sold in an honourable agreement? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I think there is a misapprehension about the 1922 agreement. There was no exchange between the Crown and Te Arawa for the lake beds going into Crown ownership. The Crown had always asserted that it owned those lakes. That had been contested by Te Arawa and continued to be contested but because Te Arawa did not have any ability to influence the Crown’s legislation it came to a negotiated settlement at that time. That is why there has always been a sense of genuine grievance that it was not an agreement done with the utmost good faith that one would require from a treaty partner. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister appears not to have heard my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is the one and only warning. I want the point of order raised because it had better be a point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It is. I asked whether at the time of offering the lakes back to Te Arawa the Minister was able to cite any other example where a lake was handed back to Maori where there had been a sale. The Minister dodged that question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The Minister gave a full and comprehensive answer which pointed out that the assumption of the question was wrong. There was no sale. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Did the Minister want to comment? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: No. That was the point I was to make. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Which party established the precedent for returning lake beds to Maori? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: National did. It established the precedent in 1992 with Lake Taupo and consolidated that precedent with NgaiTahu in 1998. That is why in the following year 1999 Te Arawa knew that the National Government of the day was happy to return the lakes to them. National has now obviously changed its policy—another example of the flip-flop by Dr Brash. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I just want to say to one member of the House that the interjection he made which referred to his own colleagues was grossly offensive. I will not repeat it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: When the Minister was giving the House her little lesson before on her opinion about the proposed sale was she aware that the sale actually took place after some 8 years of negotiation and that none other than Sir Apirana Ngata was one of the Government negotiators; and how is it then that she is able to say that even though a sale was historically concluded there was no sale? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Because there was no sale. If one reads the record at the time one can see that it was a classic case whereby one party to the negotiation had considerable power to the detriment of the other party. All the record shows that and that is why there has been a sense of grievance in Te Arawa ever since. Members should not forget that as I am sure the honourable member knows Te Arawa was a tribe loyal to the Crown. 
Stephen Franks 
: What kinds of airspace rights were on offer to Te Arawa as recently it appears as last Christmas; and exactly how soon after Dr Brash’sOrewa speech did the Minister whisk airspace rights off the negotiating table? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Airspace rights have never been on the negotiating table and that is why one of the initial offers that was made was rejected by Te Arawa who wanted that to be in the agreement. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If after 8 years of negotiations there was no sale in 1922 what on earth has the Government been paying an annuity for for the past 82 years? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The annuity in effect was paid not to pursue a legal action. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave for the House to grant the Minister—and I think we can do it that way—the opportunity to explain that. As far as we understand at the time $2000 was paid to sort out those legal matters not the annuity. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no the member knows he cannot seek leave on behalf of another person. 
Stephen Franks 
: I seek leave to table a communication from Te Arawa leadership to members recording the offer of airspace rights shortly before Christmas last year. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.