Turia Tariana: Appropriation (2004/05 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Turia Tariana: Appropriation (2004/05 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:619;Page:14976] 
TARIANA TURIA (Leader—Maori Party) 
:  
I want to address the estimates of appropriations for Vote Treaty Negotiations and my comments will relate to two specific areas of concern: the way in which the concept of settlements is grouped under two major outcomes based on deficit analysis and the vexed question of quantity—are we being short-changed again? 
As all in this House are aware the Treaty of Waitangi is the foundation document for our nation. At its very heart the treaty represents the basis of a relationship between peoples—a relationship of goodwill—that anticipated promise for our future. I ask how much goodwill can be retained in a relationship in which the key purposes of it are to reduce crime and to ensure that peoples’ interactions are underpinned by the rule of law. The major outcomes that the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has agreed to for Vote Treaty Negotiations the vote that represents the constitutional basis of this nation are safer communities in which there is reduced crime youth offending offending by Maori violence organised crime theft of and from cars burglary family violence and serious traffic offending. In other words if we enact the Treaty of Waitangi claims settlement process we will reduce all those negative outcomes of crime offending and violence. What does that say about the Crown’s view of the parties involved in that relationship? The other major outcome agreed by the Minister is a fairer more credible and more effective justice system where there is improved delivery of court services; improved public confidence in the police judiciary and other institutions; improved laws; and finally improved relationships between the Crown and Maori. 
What a maze of bureaucratic waffle! How can treaty negotiations reduce theft of and from cars prevent burglaries and improve confidence in the police? I am sure that the concept of theft as applied to land would be one that groups would understand far better than any of those other outcomes. The recent claimant group that signed Taranaki ki Whanganui a Tara no doubt also considered that the land dealings meted out by the New Zealand Company were akin to home invasion. So treaty settlements will reduce every possible form of crime other than the real crime wherein our lands language and culture were taken away and another was imposed upon us—the crime of being dispossessed of our sovereignty of being stripped of our identity and our resource base. Our tupuna never ceded their sovereignty. It was taken from them at the point of a gun and by the doctrines of law. It is inconceivable that our tupuna would have given an unknown foreign power the right to rule over them and make laws against them and to steal their land. It is an impossibility and beyond the powers of any rangatira to do that both then and now. So when our people learn that the desired outcomes of treaty negotiations will serve to uphold the rule of law no wonder there is so much cynicism about this Government. 
The other key area in the 2004-05 financial year that I want to pick up on is the massive increase of $1.29 million for increased negotiation activity! That is a crime. We want more settlements but also more money—not to be short-changed again. If tangata whenua enjoyed proper protection of their property rights settlements would be worth considerably more than the meagre pickings calculated in these appropriations. Our people should actually be entitled to legal aid as are others particularly those involved in criminal offending. Perhaps the outcome that we could have accepted in Vote Treaty Negotiations was an outcome in which tangata whenua are recognised for the contribution they have made and continue to make to this nation; an outcome in which the quality of the relationship between the Crown and our people is actually a meaningful one based on mutual priorities not just propping up Crown infrastructure; an outcome that would actually demonstrate that treaty settlements are about acknowledging the vital contribution our people have made to all aspects of the social cultural economic and political life of this great country of ours. That is the sort of outcome we can all sign up to.