Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:15948] 
1. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: Why has the Government agreed to transfer title to 14 Rotorua lakebeds to Te Arawa when Te Arawa originally transferred the ownership of those lakes to the Crown in return for an annuity and their grievance related to the size of the annuity rather than an issue of title? I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. To make the question grammatically correct the word “is” should be in there—“is their grievance …”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is a slight correction to questions No. 1 and No. 2. I was going to allow the member to do that and I will allow the member to change one word in question No. 2 as well. So we will take the question as the member said it. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 In March 1999 the Crown signed a terms of negotiation with Te Arawa that acknowledge the need to resolve a grievance relating to the lakes. The grievances in those terms were wider than the terms of the 1992 agreement and the inadequacy of that annuity. The grievance relates to the impact of the Crown’s acts and omissions on Te Arawa’s relationship with the lakes including their customary associations the management of the lakes’ waters and fisheries the pollution of the lakes and the loss of value of the annuity. In July 2001 the Crown reaffirmed the terms of negotiation. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How can anyone be expected to believe the Government’s claims that treaty settlements under its administration will be full and final when this is the overturning of an honourable agreement reached in 1922 and when in fact the issue has not been about the title to the lakes but rather the annuity; and on what basis does she expect New Zealanders to believe that treaty negotiations and treaty claims will ever come to an end? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: As I said this grievance is not only about the 1992 agreement. Several grievances were filed with the tribunal but rather than proceed with the tribunal the previous National Government agreed to enter into negotiations to resolve all the grievances relating to the lakes. So in that sense it is a full and final agreement and it does not directly relate in the sense that the member is referring I think to the 1992 agreement. Of course it is related to it but it is wider than that particular matter. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not like to tell this Minister her job but I am referring to a 1922 settlement with Te Arawa whereby the beds of the lakes were transferred to Government ownership and a £6000 a year annuity was agreed to be paid to Te Arawa. Everyone accepts that that annuity—unlinked to inflation—now looks rather pathetic. I am simply asking why it is that the Government is prepared to undo an agreement that was honourably reached in 1922. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister had not quite finished her answer but I will invite her to finish it and address that part of the question. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: As I said the grievance relates not only to matters that arise from that but subsequent to that. It is all grievances up to 1992. That was agreed by the Government of which the member was a part and was continued in that obligation to this day. 
Darren Hughes 
: What are the differences with the Te Arawa lake settlements as they compare with past settlements relating to lakes? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: One of the many differences is that this Government has not agreed to give away water columns and airspace in the lakes. We believe these should be retained by the Crown for the benefit of all New Zealanders unlike National which gave both away on Lake Taupo. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. One thing that happens in this House is that there is an orchestrated outburst when the Minister is under some pressure from a question. It comes in the form of claps yahoos or whatever. It is not spontaneous and it actually interferes with the next question. If members on this side of the House do it I notice that you jump on it quite quickly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not correct. I allow quite a lot of interjection to be made during answers and the member knows it. That is another point of order he has raised that is not a point of order. 
Stephen Franks 
: Is the Minister aware that Te Arawa appears to have dropped its claim to the only one of the 14 lakes that has a reserve status which would require public consultation before a change of status and what consultation can she assure New Zealanders there will be for the people of Rotorua and New Zealand before she gives away what the Crown bought in 1922? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: As part of the negotiations to date—and the deed has yet to be signed—the consultation has taken place at this stage with the local authorities that are affected and with those recreational groups that have an interest. The next stage of the consultation of course appears in this House where the members who represent the people of New Zealand will have a full opportunity to be able to debate and to discuss the matter in select committee as well as in debate in this House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Was there any demur from members of the ACT party or anybody in the National Party at that time—that is in 1992— 
Stephen Franks 
: In 1922? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No in 1992. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! This is the one warning today about interjecting whilst questions are being asked. Members have a right to ask a question in silence. The Hon Winston Peters will please start again. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Was there any demur from members of the National Party or members of the ACT party when the 1992 terms of agreement were entered into by the National Party and what does one call that if it is not a boomerang? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Even in supplementary questions facts are required to be authenticated. The ACT party was not formed in 1992 so I would like to know how the member thinks that a party that was not formed could have made representations. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I had difficulty with the question too. I could not see how it dealt with the responsibility of the Minister at that particular time because even I was not in the House then. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that she received advice from Treasury the Department of Internal Affairs and the Department of Conservation that the settlement proposal from Te Arawa “does not advance special circumstances that are sufficient to justify an exception to principles or confine the precedent risk.”; and if she did why has she decided to enter this precedent-setting settlement? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: A variety of advice has been given by various officials since 1999 when this matter first came for negotiation. I cannot recall the specific matters referred to by the member. If he wishes to refer them to me I will be able to give him a fuller and more informed answer. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table a press release put out by the Minister in which she states that the Taupo deal she referred to earlier in question time set no precedent. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.