Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2281] 
Questions to Ministers 
Treaty of Waitangi—Historical Claims 
10.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: How does he define “historical claims” as referred to in the Government’s 2005 election policy? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Historical claims relate to Crown acts or omissions prior to 21 September 1992. This definition has been consistently applied since its adoption by Cabinet in 1992. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: When does he intend to introduce legislation to the House to give effect to the election promise to close off the lodgment of all historic Treaty of Waitangi claims by 1 September 2008? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I can assure the member that the appropriate Minister will put the appropriate legislation before the House to ensure that the legislation is passed in plenty of time to meet that target. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What discussions has the Minister had with the Hon Nanaia Mahuta over the conflicting claims between Ngati Te Ata and Tainui over the iron sands at Maioro? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Whilst I meet frequently with the Hon Nanaia Mahuta I have not had any meetings on that subject as such. 
Pita Paraone 
: Does the Minister agree that the key to expeditiously resolving historical claims lies not in adopting a negative approach unlike some parties in this House but in adopting constructive ideas such as those contained in the  
Waka Umanga 
 report like having iwi groups establish mandated corporate entities at the front end of negotiations rather than during the final stages of negotiations; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I entirely agree with the member’s assertion that constructive engagement to find creative ways to reach settlement is indeed the best way forward. Although not every idea that is advanced will necessarily be appropriate improvements can certainly be made and I am actively seeking to make them. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is it a policy of this Government for the Office of Treaty Settlements to ignore Waitangi Tribunal findings; if not why has the Office of Treaty Settlements decided to ignore a 1985 Waitangi Tribunal finding that the Crown should negotiate with Ngati Te Ata over Maioro and decided to deal instead with Tainui? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I would have to look at the documentation to see whether the member’s assertion is correct. Certainly it is not the practice of the Office of Treaty Settlements to ignore the tribunal but it does not always agree with the tribunal. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to reflect on that answer. He is virtually saying that I am wrong in making that particular assertion. He is the Minister; one would assume that where there is such a difficult conflict he might have received some report on it. This is an issue that could see New Zealand Steel shut down within a very short time and I do not believe for one minute that the Minister has not been acquainted with the difficulties that exist over that particular claim. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That may or may not be the case but I think if one looks carefully at question No. 10 one will see that it is not clear this was a matter that was signalled as part of the original question. Some of the problems we had last week—or possibly the week before; I do not know whether I was here last week—were around these issues of having blind first questions British House of Commons style. People cannot expect Ministers to bring all the details of every Office of Treaty Settlements case in response to a question like that. If one wanted to go even further one might want to question whether asking the Minister to define historical claims and then going to a specific claim is within the bounds of the original question anyway. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I do not need further help; I thank members. The question was a general one. The member is entitled to ask questions within that general context and did but the Minister is equally entitled to express a view which he did. If he felt that the member was wrong then he is entitled to say that. I ask the member to ask a supplementary question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why is the Office of Treaty Settlements now deciding to deal with Tainui in matters that should rightly be dealt with through Ngati Te Ata on the basis that Ngati Te Ata are hapu of Tainui when in fact Ngati Te Ata do not appear as one of the 23 listed hapu in the Tainui settlement legislation? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Frankly my colleague Mr Mallard made the pertinent point. I am simply not prepared to come to the House and debate the detail of— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You don’t know what’s going on. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I say to Mr Smith that the fact that I do know what is going on in the portfolio means I am not prepared to come to the House and discuss the detail of any one of 23 complex negotiations in a superficial way. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That cannot be an acceptable answer from the Minister. These questions are set down early in the day. Surely a Minister would go to his office staff and ask what all the interesting difficult potentially troublesome settlements or claims around the countryside are that this question might lead on to. Surely do we not have a right to expect that when the imminent closure of New Zealand Steel is at stake the Minister may have received a briefing? Further are we not entitled to imagine that these— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Could the point of order be brief please. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: The point of order is that you surely cannot allow Ministers to simply say that they did not anticipate the question and that they will come back— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. I thank the member. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. I need no assistance with this. I have already ruled in effect that of course the Minister did address the question. It is always appropriate for a Minister to ask for notice of specific matters that are raised as a result of a general question. That is perfectly in order as a response. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Can the Minister clarify that if there is a dispute within iwi over mandate there is a process with the Office of Treaty Settlements for working that dispute through? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Because the member asks a general question I say that there is absolutely a process. Generally questions within iwi are best solved within iwi particularly as they relate to mandating but often the Office of Treaty Settlements does lend assistance to that process. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is it the Minister’s practice to work carefully through issues within his portfolio in a timely manner to comment on them as appropriate when he has focused on them and not to leave dozens and dozens of boxes of papers in his room as the Hon Nick Smith did when he stopped being a Minister? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. Would the Minister please rephrase that question without including the last phrase that has caused the problem. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We have had a number of questions today that have asked for a bit of a narrowing of the way in which questions can be answered. I have been told repeatedly that my questions are too broad in relation to question No. 10 itself. How on earth can a Minister being asked to comment on his style of work in any way relate to question No. 10? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. The problem with the question Mr Brownlee was that what the member asked was actually too specific and narrow but your original question was fine. The point is that the Minister has addressed the questions here we have to make progress and if I receive any more frivolous points of order then I will rule that the House is being brought into disrepute. So would the Minister please address the question without the member’s last part—an opinion on that but without the comparison please. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The member is entirely correct. This is a complex portfolio in which mistakes are costly in every sense of the word. We have managed to achieve in a relatively short time in the term of this Government six deeds of settlements. Thirteen groups have entered negotiations. We have 25 live negotiations proceeding right now. The portfolio requires extreme care and a degree of caution that is rare even in ministerial portfolios. It would be simply irresponsible to treat those issues flippantly and frivolously in this House. 
Youth—Government Initiatives 
11.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Youth Affairs 
: What changes is the Government making to improve the lives of young New Zealanders? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 From 1 April—this Saturday—interest-free student loans will be introduced as a core commitment by this Labour-led Government to improve the lives of many young New Zealanders. It is a good story to tell. For example a graduate with a debt of $15000 who earns $35000 a year will save $6935 and repay his or her loan in 7 years. Without the changes the student would have taken 10 years to repay $21935 in accumulated debt. There is a good story to tell to young New Zealanders. 
Fungus Invasion Northland—Biosecurity Plan 
12.  
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
 to the  
Minister for Biosecurity 
: Does Biosecurity New Zealand have a plan in place to combat the recently discovered invasive fungus threatening the Northland horticultural industry? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 A new species of fungus called  
Phytophthora kernoviae 
 has been identified in Northland. Biosecurity New Zealand is currently assessing its options for dealing with this fungus. In keeping with our international obligations Biosecurity New Zealand has notified our trading partners of this find. However it is not clear how long the fungus may have been in New Zealand. There are several other species of the fungus that cause leaf loss and wilting in trees. Standard crop protection techniques such as applying fungicide can be used to manage these varieties. It has not yet been determined whether that will also work on this variety of fungus. 
Shane Ardern 
: Does the Minister agree with Biosecurity New Zealand’s proposal for a generic incursion response system as outlined as being one of the Minister’s priorities in the briefing paper to the incoming Minister? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: That is one proposal from the Biosecurity Ministerial Advisory Committee. I point out to the member that if New Zealand were to try to fund biosecurity systems that would prevent not only hundreds of thousands but millions of possible incursions in New Zealand there would not be enough wealth generated in the whole GDP to guarantee that. I am advised just as one example that there are 30 varieties of this particular kind of fungus and tens of thousands of varieties of fungus in New Zealand. So which hundreds or thousands of those particular varieties does the member have in mind that we deal with? That is only fungus. 
Shane Ardern 
: Does this mean that the Minister was wrong when in his press statement dated 2 November 2005 he stated: “legally (and logically) you cannot have a pest management strategy before incursions happen—”? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: We have to know what particular incursions we are trying to deal with—or is it the millions that the member evidently knows more about than the scientists who advise us? I can say to the member that I do not think I was wrong about that but I do know that the member was wrong when he said recently that didymo can be killed but that unfortunately one has to kill a river for a few years to do it and that surely it would be better to sacrifice one or two rivers than to let it spread through the South Island. This Government is not prepared to sacrifice any rivers. It is not prepared to try to kill something that no one in the world knows anything about. New Zealand is now the leading country on scientific investigation into didymo. I wish that the member would wake up and smell the coffee about biosecurity and get a decent briefing from Biosecurity New Zealand which I will offer him so he can get up to speed. 
Shane Ardern 
: How does the Minister expect the New Zealand public to have any confidence in him at all when clearly his own Cabinet colleagues do not as was evidenced yesterday when he was rolled over the dog-chipping fiasco; and when will he actually take some notice of his own ministry when it advises him to have a generic response capability—as his Act requires him? He is required under the Act to have it so when will he do that? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: In terms of resources for biosecurity this Government has more than doubled the financial resource for the baselines of biosecurity and it has had extraordinary success in dealing with incursions. The painted apple moth the Asian gypsy moth and the fall web worm moth were all dealt with under this Government’s watch and that is because we have resourced this department properly unlike the previous National Government. 
Shane Ardern 
: I seek the leave of the House to table Part 5 of the Biosecurity Act which clearly states that a Minister has the power and is required to set up a— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Shane Ardern 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the advisory papers to the incoming Minister which clearly state that a No. 1 objective of Biosecurity New Zealand in 2005-06 was to put in place a strategic management strategy. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Shane Ardern 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a press release from the Minister dated 2 November 2005 where the Minister says that it would not be sensible and he cannot manage a strategy before an incursion happens. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.