Finlayson Christopher: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Finlayson Christopher: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:11436] 
10.  
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: How many historic Treaty settlements has the Labour-led Government taken from initial start negotiations through to the passing of settlement legislation since 1999? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 This Government began negotiations with Nga Rauru in 2000 and legislation was passed in 2005. In addition since Labour took office in November 1999 a further nine deeds of settlement have been reached with Te Uri o Hau Ngati Ruanui Ngati Tama Ngati Awa Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty Ngati Mutunga Te Roroa Te Arawa Lakes and affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu. It is easy to open the door to start a Treaty settlement negotiation. It is far harder to undertake the long journey to bring them to a successful conclusion. This Government’s record shows that we are doing just that. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question was very succinct and very precise. I was talking about negotiations from initial start negotiations through to the passing of settlement legislation. The nonsense the Minister spouted was— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I listened very carefully. The Minister did address the question. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Can the Minister confirm that included in his list of settlements fully settled is the Te Arawa affiliate settlement even though the settlement legislation has not even had its first reading? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I cannot confirm that because it is not what I said. The member should pay attention. 
Pita Paraone 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Can the Minister confirm whether the two largest settlements to date have contributed to the time that subsequent claims have taken to settle and that these two settlements will continue to impact on the determination of the quantum arrived at for future claims between the Crown and iwi? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: There is no question that the ratchet clause in those two settlements does just that and although that was part of the settlement structure for those two agreements it does on a daily basis impact on and make more complex and difficult subsequent claims. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou. Does he stand by his comments made in the  
New Zealand Herald  
this morning that despite the grave concerns expressed by the Waitangi Tribunal about the interests of overlapping hapu and the durability of future central North Island settlements “the Government would be moving ahead with the settlement and it was up to interest groups to organise their own hui”; and would he not consider this a huge insult to the Waitangi Tribunal the Federation of Maori Authorities the New Zealand Maori Council and the other competing central North Island iwi including Te Arawa and Ngati Tuwharetoa; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I regret I cannot confirm that I have seen that particular quote in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 but it does not sound like an accurate reflection of my position. What I have said in recent interviews on that matter is two things: first the Crown has an absolute obligation of good faith to those with whom we have negotiated and as a matter of honour we must observe the detail of our negotiated agreement should the claimant group require that in good faith. Secondly I have said the Crown welcomes any opportunity to engage with and support the efforts of those who seek to find resolution to the wider issues around central North Island settlement and if indeed an alternative strategy emerges that is acceptable to all including those with whom the Crown has already negotiated then I and the Crown would welcome that. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Does he agree with Ngati Arawa’s commercial negotiator that “I do not think there has been leadership under this Government.” and why does he think that even claimant groups his Government has negotiated with are saying there is no political leadership under Labour? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No I do not agree with that statement because it is factually incorrect. For the member who aspires to hold this job—indeed issues press statements already calling himself the National Minister which I think is a little presumptuous—I suggest to the member that he attend to just how difficult the process is. It requires good-faith engagement and one of the aspects of good faith is that when organisations are in negotiation part of the agreement they reach is that they do not make comment through the media; they talk to each other. That is what I actually do in my engagement with those with whom I am negotiating. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Why has the Government ignored the Waitangi Tribunal’s recommendation to delay the Te Arawa settlement after the tribunal identified the Crown as being in the game of picking favourites and making decisions on tribal groups based on inadequate information or is this latest decision a case of “settle at all costs” despite the stern criticism of the way the Crown mismanages settlements? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I will not repeat my first answer in full but I would refer the member to it. As I indicated there are two issues: one is the question of obligation because of undertakings given in good faith to mandated negotiators. Were I to simply abandon those good-faith undertakings given on behalf of the Crown I would be certainly in breach of earlier recommendations of the same Waitangi Tribunal. I certainly am not ignoring nor is the Crown the advice of the tribunal but one of the things we are working through is trying to reconcile conflicting advice from the tribunal. That is one of the many matters I will be engaging with them on over the coming weeks. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: If the Labour-led Government has not been dragging its heels in completing Treaty settlements why has it taken an average of almost 21 months to progress from signing a deed of settlement to passing settlement legislation under Labour when the same process took just 9 months under the National Government of the 1990s? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: That question demonstrates just what an absurd and simplistic notion that member has of the uniqueness of each individual settlement process. The member for instance ignores the fact of the numerous settlements that were started in the 1990s that had to be completed by this Government because they had not been completed. The member ignores that five of the negotiations and settlements he is referring to were tiny settlements of less than $1 million none of which required settlement legislation. The member needs to do a great deal more homework before again describing himself as the Minister of anything. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What response does the Minister have to the concern from the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination that “Recommendations made by the Waitangi Tribunal are generally not binding and that only a small percentage of these recommendations are followed by the Government.” a situation that the committee considers “deprives claimants of a right to effective remedy and weakens their position when entering into negotiations with the Crown.”? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I do not share the committee’s view nor do I think the committee necessarily demonstrated in those remarks a complete understanding of the role and the jurisdictional differences between the tribunal and those of a court for instance. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: What responsibility does the Minister’s predecessor have for the stalling of the Treaty settlement process when groups who had to negotiate with her have stated: “We had three or four meetings at most”—with the Minister’s predecessor—“none of which achieved anything. We expressed our concerns and she noted them and nothing else happened.”? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I think it is fair to say that my predecessor presided over a process of putting in place a sensible credible systematic process of Treaty engagement and settlement. Frankly that contrasts with the consequences of not having such a framework that we saw in the dying moments of the last National Government as it tried to rush through the Whakatohea settlement which of course it cooked up and which collapsed shortly after the election.