Harawira Hone: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Harawira Hone: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:11292] 
6. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: Me aro nga kuratini ki ehea ture i mua i te whakapau i nga rawa e kore nei e hiahiatia kia ahei ai ratou ki te pupuri tonu i aua rawa; no te Karauna nga rawa ko ratou nga kaitiaki ke hei whakahoki atu ki nga iwi mo nga kereme whakataunga i te Tiriti o Waitangi? 
[ 
What procedures do tertiary education institutions have to comply with before disposing of any assets that are surplus to their needs to ensure that those Crown-owned assets managed by them but no longer needed are able to be retained as part of the redress options for Treaty of Waitangi settlement claims for iwi? 
]  
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 If a tertiary institution wants to dispose of surplus land that is in Crown title then Maori interests in that land are considered through the existing protection mechanism and site of significance processes. If all Treaty settlements in the area have been completed then it is considered through a right of first refusal process. These processes are managed by the Office of Treaty Settlements and are unchanged by the new policy regarding Crown assets in the tertiary sector. If a tertiary education institution wants to dispose of surplus land that it owns it does not need to go through these processes but it must honour any right of first refusal on the title of the land. 
Hone Harawira 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Which tertiary institutions have assets that have been identified as suitable to go on the for sale list and what consultation has been undertaken with iwi about those assets? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: It is up to the institutions themselves to manage their assets so there is no actual for sale list. I am advised however that the Universal College of Learning and Massey University have identified surplus Crown assets and are going through the disposal process. This disposal process includes consultation with iwi as I stated in my answer to the primary question over their interest in the land. 
Hone Harawira 
: What consultation has been undertaken between the Crown and iwi about the plan recently agreed to by Cabinet to make it easier for tertiary institutions to sell their Crown-owned assets; and if none has been undertaken how will iwi become involved in this process? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The policy changes recently agreed to by Cabinet are to provide certainty to the institution in terms of the process for Government decision-making not to make it easier. The policy change also clarifies the financial split that would take place between the Crown and the institution of any sale proceeds. We made these changes because previously such land disposals had been administered by the Government in an ad hoc way. As outlined in the answer to the primary question all existing consultation processes with iwi regarding land disposals remain unchanged. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Given his recent influence over Tuhoe negotiations can he advise the House of the state of play of Te Tau Ihu Treaty settlement negotiations in so far as they impact upon land and properties currently occupied by the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I reject the assertion made by the member at the outset of her question. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that we have some leniency now about using a “why” “what” or “how” word to start a question and I accept your ruling on that. But it gets very tough when a member in asking a question makes a controversial statement beginning with “given that” that involves a Minister and then asks a question that puts the controversial statement into the  
Hansard 
. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Just for the flow of the House’s business it might be easier if my colleague restated the question without the original assertion and the Minister could answer it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Nice try! I apologise to the House that I was perhaps remiss there. What we saw happen though which is not a bad remedy was the Minister flatly reject the assertion that the member had made and give no further answer. Under those circumstances I will not allow the member to repeat the question. When members make that kind of statement the penalty is that either I intervene or they do not have their question answered. In this case the member did not get her question answered and that is where it remains.