Wilson Margaret: Estimates Debate —  Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Wilson Margaret: Estimates Debate —  Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7274] 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I would like to make a few comments on the matters that have been raised in the estimates debate. First I would like to add my compliments to the Serious Fraud Office on the very good work it does and the fact that it has been warning the select committee of an increase in the number of scams. At times the select committee has been perhaps a little distracted if I may say with events of the past but that warning has been heard and taken up by this Government and it is consistent with the approach of the Serious Fraud Office which is a pre-emptive approach to the issue; it has sought and received some extra funding in its investigations. 
I might also touch on a second matter that has been raised by the member from the New Zealand First Party on the Supreme Court. Of course there are various views within Maoridom. The correspondence the member referred to was obviously in that time and context. There have been continuing discussions and debate of which he has been part but which he obviously did not put in the context of the written communication he had which was some time ago. Why should people in the Maori community all be of one mind? Certainly people in the Pakeha-European community and people in other communities in our society are not of one mind. So it is really important that we get the diversity of views. 
It is just a pity that the member did not take advantage of the opportunity to join us on the weekend—a beautiful weekend in Taupo—to be able to get for the full 3 days the absolute benefit for that total time rather than dipping out of the issue to suit one’s own position. 
I want to make my substantive comments relating to the portfolio in the estimates debate on treaty negotiations and I wish to acknowledge the comments made by my colleague the Hon Georgina te Heuheu and say that I do appreciate her acknowledgment that there is a bipartisan support for the settlement of historical grievance process. I appreciated that and took her comments on that process in the spirit of those who wish to ensure the claims are settled as quickly as possible. 
I draw the previous speaker’s attention to what was in the estimates. As members are aware the Crown’s objective has been to settle historical grievances in a timely fashion but it recognises that if we try to hurry this process artificially as the fiscal envelope process attempted to do we will delay what will be full and final and what we would call “durable settlements” which is what we intend to achieve. 
It is important to realise that in the estimates increased funding was given in support of this process and two particular output classes are relevant to this debate. The first is funding that assists the claimants to enter negotiations—negotiations with the claimants on behalf of the Crown—and second the implementation of those agreed settlements. It is important to acknowledge that $895000 has been allocated in addition. We have now an increased level of funding so that the negotiation activity can be consistent with the number of claimants who are entering into the process. 
 It is important to acknowledge that whereas 12 months ago the funding was given to set up claimant development teams—and that was important at the time to assist claimants to be able to get to the position of negotiations—this year the success of that process means we need additional funding for the actual negotiations. Therefore the funding will be directed to assist those in the negotiating process. So the increased funding means in practical terms that the Office of Treaty Settlements can establish a further negotiating team and that I think demonstrates our commitment to that process. 
I also would draw members’ attention to the second output class and that is representation of the Crown before the Waitangi Tribunal. I acknowledge the comments of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu in this respect. It is important to understand that just funding to the tribunal itself will not necessarily increase the process. What was important we found in the analysis into how we increase the timeliness of the tribunal’s capacity to be able to hear and produce reports is that that is to a large extent dependent upon the input from the Crown into that process. Therefore the output class has increased by $302000 and that is funding that will go to the Crown to ensure that our funding will enable us to not delay the tribunal in its hearing of claims that come before it. 
It is also important to acknowledge the progress that has been made and although my colleague Mita Ririnui has made some reference to this it probably does bear some repetition. The first point is that we have made significant progress in the Taranaki claims and what that means is at times somewhat forgotten. Not only have we settled Ngati Ruanui and we have Ngati Tama’s bill before the select committee but also we are making considerable progress with Nga Rauru and Ngati Mutunga has come into negotiations again. So we should see a timely settlement there. Most important the Whanganui River Maori are also entering negotiations with us. 
Progress has been made in the Bay of Plenty the central North Island and in other parts of the country particularly Auckland and Northland. It is important because people are beginning to realise that this is a comprehensive thrust on the settlement of claims and not just a settlement in one region. At the moment I notice that the focus has been on the central North Island and although that is important it is not draining resources from other areas because that has been factored into our planning. If the mandating process is successful then over 100 claims will be able to be settled through that particular negotiation; that does not mean we are not attending to the needs of Ngati Whatua o Orakei in Auckland or Te Rarawa in the north or Te Arawa in terms of the lakes claims. All those claims are proceeding at the same time. 
The honourable member Georgina te Heuheu did raise some issues that were raised at the select committee and were heard by the Government in terms of its approach to this. We tried to explain in some detail and with a great deal of transparency the process that we are following here. Certainly we are always open to ways we can improve it. But the truth is that on issues like large natural groupings—and such issues were raised by members of the select committee—one cannot in fact have every particular claim particularly every whanau claim settled individually and at the same time argue that there should be a timely settlement of all claims. That lies behind the large natural groupings policy of the Crown and why we do not enter into negotiations with claimants until we get a consensus on what that grouping should be. I agree that ratification rates should be higher in some instances but in other instances it is very high so the question is whether there is evidence of uneven ratification numbers in that respect. 
Finally a great deal of discussion was had at the hui on the weekend as to how we can improve the governance arrangements and the Crown was certainly open to hearing how we can ensure we get the resources that will come through the historical process of settlement of claims to the beneficiaries which is the ultimate purpose of this process. So I would argue in this estimates debate that the Crown is placing its resources where they are most needed. 
Vote Attorney General agreed to. 
Vote Labour agreed to. 
Vote Parliamentary Counsel agreed to. 
Vote Serious Fraud agreed to.