Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:645;Page:14609] 
6.  
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: He aha ta Ngati Whaoa i roto i te Tikanga Whakaaetanga i hainatia i nga wiki e rua kua hipa i waenganui i te Karauna me nga kahui mangai e mohiotia nei ko te Kotahitanga a-iwi i Te Puku o Te Ika-a-Maui? 
[ 
What involvement has Ngati Whaoa had in the terms of agreement signed 2 weeks ago between the Crown and representatives of the iwi group known as the Central North Island Collective? 
] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Ngati Whaoa has been included in the Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa settlement and Te Pumautanga itself is not a part of the central North Island iwi collective although it retains a watching brief on the work of the collective. The issue of whether Ngati Whaoa is part of the Te Pumautanga collective moving forward is in dispute at the present time and further work is proceeding on that. The Crown supports participation being as wide as possible in the Central North Island Collective which is why the agreement includes provision for expanding the membership of the collective in the future. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Would the Minister accept that the forest interests of Ngati Whaoa because of the signing of the Central North Island Collective agreement may be compromised and how will he move to rectify the situation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I certainly do not at this point. What those interests are and how they interrelate with other interests are matters to be explored as part of this process. At this point nobody’s interests I think can be said to have been compromised. I note that the deputy chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal has ruled within the last couple of days on an application for interference in this process. To quote: “This initiative can only be applauded and the tribunal would most reluctant to do anything obstructive to achieving the outcome. It is clear that the vast majority of claimant groups in the central North Island are now pursuing this objective.” 
Hon Mark Burton 
: What reports has he received on plans to settle historical Treaty claims? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I saw reports on television this morning where Mr Key announced that he was abandoning a firm deadline for settling historical Treaty claims. He claimed that National had never had a firm deadline for settling with claimants. That is simply incorrect. The policy was to settle historical Treaty claims within 5 years of taking office. This is yet another example of National slipping and sliding around. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: What recent progress has been made in settling historical Treaty claims? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Very good progress has been made building on the work of my predecessors Mark Burton and the Hon Margaret Wilson. In addition to signing terms of agreement with the Central North Island Collective last month we also signed terms of negotiation with Ngati Makino and Waitaha. That builds on the end of the year with the Waikato-Tainui heads of agreement in terms of the Waikato River claim and with the Port Nickerson—[ 
Interruption 
] that was a slip of the tongue; I am sure the member never makes a slip of his tongue anywhere—with the Port Nicholson Block Claims Team to settle all outstanding historical claims of Taranaki Whanui. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What concerns is he aware of about the process that committed Ngati Whaoa by being coupled with Ngati Tahu into the membership of the collective known as Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa by being coupled with Ngati Tahu; and what action will he take to address those concerns? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am aware of a dispute which is with representatives of Ngati Whaoa principally Peter Staite and Walter Rika who played an active part of the Te Arawa group which is not part of the Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa grouping. At the moment we are engaged in trying to sort what the facts are in that respect. The Crown facilitator is engaged in a variety of actions and I expect to receive further recommendations for consideration. My preference of course is for people to put aside whatever other differences they may have had and to participate in the Central North Island Collective process at this point because that is likely to achieve at the end of the day the most effective long-term outcome for all central North Island iwi and hapu by maximising the commercial value of any settlement process. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Is the Minister aware that at a hui held at Ohaaki marae Reporoa on 17 July 2003 a hui at which the Crown purports to have obtained a mandate from Ngati Whaoa 68 members of Ngati Whaoa walked out of the hui; and would he not consider that such a unilateral walk-out hardly constitutes a fair and just process? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is not for me to comment on whether people should have walked out of a particular hui or not. If they had stayed within the room the outcome might have been different of course at that particular point. As I say I am seeking further advice at this stage but it would be a great tragedy if at the end of the day an attempt to put together an entire collective agreement around the central North Island forest was derailed by an extremely small group of people. I hope people can be kept inside the tent. Every effort is being made by Wira Gardiner and others to get people inside that tent because I think it would be awful if in 20 years’ time we were still talking about the attempt to put together a central North Island forest settlement.