Flavell Te Ururoa: Budget Debate 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Budget Debate 
[Volume:639;Page:9647] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou. Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou e te Whare. The Maori Party comes to the Government’s annual financial statement with two basic principles in mind. The first is that the Budget would promote fairly the development of each of the cultures of the two parties to the Treaty of Waitangi. The second was that the preparation the approval and the management of the Budget would be the responsibility of both parties. 
During the course of the Budget debate my colleagues Dr Sharples and Hone Harawira have shown that the management of State resources has been far from equitable. They have described the various ways in which the Crown has failed—miserably—in fulfilling the guarantees anticipated in article 3 of the Treaty and I will conclude our contribution by focusing on the Treaty as the very basis of our constitution and on how far this Budget goes in delivering on that expectation. 
The Budget summary looked really promising actually—promoting again the concept of reconciliation. The promise that “Reconciliation at home between Maori and Crown matters” was introduced earlier this year in the Prime Minister’s statement. What we do know is that Government terminology is word-crafted and spun to perfection before release so the placement of this concept in the Budget must also be understood to be fairly deliberate. We in the Maori Party consider the concept of reconciliation as being code for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa which addressed the worst ravages of the war of apartheid. 
In Australia the truth-telling nature of reconciliation is known as the “sorry” business. They have passed a Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Act to promote a deeper understanding of the past dispossession and continuing disadvantage of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. An independent entity Reconciliation Australia has also been established. And just over a year ago the Liberian Government established and staffed the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to establish forums throughout that country for victims and perpetrators of war. 
We were wondering what the Prime Minister was really thinking and what her Minister of Finance was forecasting when reconciliation was introduced in the 2007 Budget. I came across a report from Freetown Sierra Leone that gave a clear expectation of the notion of reconciliation which could involve something like this: “Reconciliation is a long-term process that must occur at national community and individual levels. Being a process it will take time and will need to continue even beyond the present generation. Reconciliation aims at restoring the social fabric within families communities and the nation.” 
So finally we thought that this Government might be looking again at the sorry state of affairs managed in the Treaty settlement negotiation processes. We thought that it might reconsider the rationale for the Crown itself chairing negotiations rather than establishing an independent body to ensure that both parties participate in good faith. Professor Mason Durie described the current process as assuming a dominance that far from endorses the principles of the Treaty. He stated: “Leaving aside the justice of the claims and the fact that settlement is well overdue the settlement process depends on the retention of adversarial bargaining rather than moving towards managed cooperation and co-existence. In other words the elements of the colonial relationship are maintained the Crown decides on the merits of the claim and makes an offer of restitution though within a framework which the Crown itself has imposed”. 
So with the key fiscal aggregates for 2007-08 showing some $76.9 billion in revenue and an operating budget of $6.4 billion one would have thought that reconciliation might have equated to meaningful revenue and resourcing. We thought that the Crown might consider leaving aside the colonial relationship instead moving towards managed cooperation coexistence reconciliation and healing. But oh no—and here is the thing—what this minority Government really meant by “reconciliation” is just treading water: more of the same and maintaining the status quo. So it gave the Office of Treaty Settlements a $900000 boost to buy some more policy analysts and it gave less than $2 million a year to the Waitangi Tribunal. But if we drill further into the fine print we find that the amount set aside for land banks is capped at an all-out total of $10 million and the total the Government expects to spend on settlements is capped at $60 million. Ten million dollars would not have been enough to buy the controversial Landcorp block of Whenuakite Station in order to return it to Hauraki iwi let alone any others. 
Ever since 1986 the Waitangi Tribunal has been able to order that land kept in the context of a State-owned enterprise must be transferred to Maori in order to settle Treaty claims. However $10 million would not have afforded the Crown any opportunity to purchase the Rangiputa block to be returned to Ngati Kahu or indeed to reverse the sale by Landcorp of 1.8 million Fonterra shares worth $11.7 million from the Ngatea farm prior to any consideration of its being set aside for the Hauraki Treaty settlements. As for the $60 million well if we take the Minister at his word we know that the Crown is currently working with over 20 groups all dealing with multiple claims. So if we consider further the approach taken in the Tamaki-makau-rau settlement inquiry the Kaingaroa inquiry and the Te Arawa settlement the Crown’s failure to disclose information or to engage might end up incurring costs outside what might be covered in the $60 million. Judge Carrie Wainwright’s findings on 8 May provided a stern accusation levelled at the Crown that its provision of documents and evidence central to the Tamaki-makau-rau inquiry was unsatisfactory and that the stance of the Crown Law Office was unfortunate. 
This is not reconciliation. These events put a stop to any hope of a Treaty partnership. They give us no hope of ever coming to forge a nation unified by the promise of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. True reconciliation would not have satisfied itself just with some funding for policy analysts. Reconciliation approaches might have considered the proposal of the Maori Party that a minimum quantum would be expected for each settlement. We believe that for the restoration and rebuilding of nationhood all claimants must be guaranteed a basic level of resource to ensure that opportunity for development is not compromised. Claimant funding needs to be reviewed and increased so that all parties to the settlement process are on a level playing field. 
Another aspect of the reconciliation project would have been to do as Professor Mason Durie suggested and establish an independent settlements authority. Such an authority would turn over every stone to ensure that the claims would be settled earlier and be settled fairly and that there was a broad consensus for the process and therefore greater commitment to the settlement resolution. Reconciliation would also have been likely if the Crown was to drop the fiscal cap on the Treaty settlement putea in the first place. 
 Ten days ago the Maori Party released its 6-prong Treaty Budget package. We are really pleased that one of the six ideals the commitment to more resourcing to the Waitangi Tribunal was followed through so that it can deal with claims more speedily. But there were other elements of our package that could also have provided some useful context for relationship repair and maintenance. One is the commitment to buy out the relativity clause—a type of top-up mechanism that will be used to supplement settlement funding in the Tainui and Ngai Tahu settlements. The other is to give consideration to joint ventures with State-owned enterprises along with other possible innovative approaches to respond to settlement priorities. 
We are interested in the comment made by law commissioner Denise Henare who concluded: “The Treaty is far from being a fossilised document. It is a beacon for the future … An embryo of principles values and ideas to be worked out developed and adjusted over time.” Well Budget 2007 does little to promote the concept of the Treaty as a beacon for the future. The fiscal constraints are so rigid and lacking in imagination that they will produce results that are stuck in time. The Government is limiting itself to a fraction of the revenue required and has shown itself to be paralysed by a minimalist view and power rather than committing to principles of justice nationhood and reconciliation.