Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:615;Page:11418] 
1. Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does Cabinet agree with the view expressed by Hon Steve Maharey that: “It is perhaps time to set a date when all [treaty] grievances must be settled so we can all move on”; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Cabinet has not discussed the Hon Steve Maharey’s views. However as the director of the Office of Treaty Settlements indicated to the Maori Affairs Committee recently at the current rate of progress the process of settling historical claims could be through in 10 to 15 years. I think that would be widely welcomed by Maori and Pakeha. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does the Prime Minister’s answer mean that the Government is working to a timetable of a 10 to 15 year settlement especially in view of the comments from Mr Horomia earlier this morning that a settlement timetable of about 10 to 15 years was appropriate? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: In effect yes. The rate at which we have budgeted for the processing of claims the negotiations the Waitangi Tribunal procedures have us on a track where we believe the historical claims could be completed in 10 to 15 years. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm for the House that Mr Maharey did in fact submit an opinion piece that was floated past her at her ninth-floor media office and that her apparent change from that position again in the House today reflects the fact that she simply could not get this next U-turn through caucus this morning? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes the article was floated past me. I do not discourage Mr Maharey from thinking. I thought when I read it—and I read it again before coming to the House—that it was a very positive article about the treaty. It said we are a bi-cultural nation it said past wrongs must be set right—which I think everybody agrees with—and it tentatively said that perhaps it is time to set a date. What I say is the Government is budgeting for a process that should see historical claims completed within 10 to 15 years. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Prime Minister as to what on earth went wrong with the Jim Bolger 1990 commitment to ensure that all major claims were settled by the end of the century—that is the year 2000—and further what went wrong with his further promise that National would make illegal any prescribed advantage and eliminate any law based on race? What happened to that policy when National last gave a commitment? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. The member cannot ask the Prime Minister about National Party policy. The member can rephrase it slightly. I am sure he will be able to get it in order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Prime Minister had any reports as to what on earth went wrong with the then commitment made in 1990 by Jim Bolger to settle all major claims by the end of the century—that is 2000—and further to make illegal any prescribed advantage and eliminate any law based on race? What reports has she had on that brilliant policy and what happened to it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is indeed a matter of record that throughout the 1990s there continued to be references to the treaty and principles put in legislation. In respect of what happened to the date of “year 2000” it does take resources to progress treaty negotiations and it is quite resource-intensive. What we have now done is set a pace for negotiations that we believe should see historical claims settled within the 10 to 15-year timetable. But I do stress it does depend on mandating and reaching agreement. However we think there is a reasonable chance on the track we are on of achieving that. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Prime Minister assure the House that she does not regard the treaty as over with once historical grievances have been settled but will treat it as the basis for a long-term good-faith relationship between Maori and other New Zealanders? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What the member is alluding to may well be a significant difference of opinion between parties on one side of the House and the other. From the point of view of the Government we do not think it is possible to just lock away the treaty at the end of the historical grievance settlement process. We think it will continue to have life and meaning. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Could the Prime Minister reconcile for the House a discrepancy between comments made by Minister Margaret Wilson a little over a week and a half ago that: “It would be impossible to set a final date of settling claims without the possibility of creating a new set of grievances.” and the comments that she herself has just made about settling within 10 to 15 years which clearly is a time frame? Why was it impossible a week and half ago but now possible? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am sure the member will appreciate that there is a great difference between setting a time frame and setting a final date beyond which nothing will be considered. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Do the Prime Minister’s answers mean that the Government has in mind a figure of 10 to 15 years but that it has not actually set a formal timetable to that effect? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What we have is a rate of progress that we are advised would see us settling the historical claims within a 10 to 15-year time frame. That is not saying there is a final date beyond which there will be no negotiation but that it is feasible with the current resourcing and rate of progress to achieve it within that time frame. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why does the Prime Minister believe she can set a finite date for conclusion of the claims process if the Government has not first of all set a finite date for the lodging of claims; for without knowing which claims it is dealing with how can the Government set such a date for conclusion? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Based on the assumption that historical grievances are now of considerable antiquity it would be a reasonable expectation I think to believe that historical claims are largely in. That is not to say there will not in the future be contemporary claims but that is certainly not included in the estimate I have given of 10 to 15 years for finalising historical claims on the present rate of progress. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that the quickest way to resolve treaty grievances is to accept the decision of the umpire the Waitangi Tribunal; hence will the Government accept the umpire’s decision on the foreshore and seabed issue? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No I could not agree with that because the Waitangi Tribunal only in the most narrowly confined area has a final decision-making power. Apart from that it has a recommendatory power and I for one would not advocate changing that because the Waitangi Tribunal is not set up like a full court where evidence is fully weighed and contested as we would expect in a full court and judicial proceeding. So one will not see any recommendation from the Government to change what are almost entirely the recommendatory powers of the tribunal. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that her answers to the House this afternoon indicate she has asked Mr Maharey and other Ministers to stop talking about a finite time for the settlement of historic grievances; or are they going to continue to put that piece of spin into the media in order to curry greater favour for an unpopular Government? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member can take from my answers this afternoon that the Government believes at the present rate of progress and level of resourcing it is feasible to conclude historical claim negotiations within 10 to 15 years. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Is the Government now prepared to consider adopting both a formal timetable for dealing with outstanding treaty claims and a royal commission or equivalent form of inquiry into New Zealand’s future constitutional arrangements including the future place and role of the treaty—such as United Future has suggested? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is not the Government’s or my intention to be any more formal than I have indicated today—which is that we can see a time frame ahead of us and we want to keep to that rate of progress. As to whether there should be a fuller inquiry into constitutional arrangements I do not have a closed mind but my view has always been that I have a lot of higher-order issues to deal with.