Clark says policy could address Maori mineral claims

Maori claims on crown minerals will not be dealt with before historic claims, political reporter AUDREY YOUNG reports.

Prime Minister Helen Clark has moved to settle down a row within the Coalition Government about Treaty of Waitangi claims on crown minerals, saying the door is open on long-term policy discussion.

While that may settle some disgruntled Maori MPs, it may unsettle those who believe there is an end in sight to treaty claims.

Historic tribal claims centred mainly on land issues are scheduled to be completed within seven to 10 years. They are the Government's priority.

The so-called contemporary claims, like a claim last week by a South Taranaki hapu to petroleum, are in the too-hard basket.

"It should be parked as an issue for another day," Helen Clark told the Herald. "We cannot deal with this at this time."

She has also questioned whether it is a treaty issue because nationalisation of petroleum in 1937 applied to all landowners, not just Maori. "It probably becomes a broader property rights issue."

She also questioned whether the Waitangi Tribunal should have heard the petroleum claim from South Taranaki iwi Nga Ruahine when the Government's policy was so clear.

Nga Ruahine claimed ownership of petroleum "as a natural incidence of rangatiratanga and mana" over its territory. It sought compensation for the loss of benefits and wants the Crown to offer the hapu its Kupe field licence.

Kupe, off the South Taranaki coast, is New Zealand's largest undeveloped petroleum resource and is thought to have 16 million barrels of oil and 264 billion cu ft of gas.

Emotions ran high in the tribunal, whose findings are not binding, and among some Government Maori MPs last week when Commerce Minister Paul Swain reiterated Government policy and said the outcome of the Nga Ruahine case would not alter it.

The Labour-Alliance policy on the use of crown minerals (including petroleum, uranium, gold and silver) essentially follows that of the previous Government.

It states: "Crown minerals which are owned and managed in the national interest, will not be included for consideration in the historic claims process. However, the Government will explore ways to address contemporary obligations to Maori under the treaty with regard to natural resources."

Disquiet was voiced by Labour MPs John Tamihere and Mita Ririnui. Alliance MP Willie Jackson was outraged at what he saw as interference and said he had never agreed to the policy.

Before being instructed by Alliance leader Jim Anderton to keep quiet, Mr Jackson said: "Maori are asking 'hey, why do we give our vote to Labour when all we are getting back is a National Party response'. It smacks of arrogance."

The heat was put on Maori Affairs Minister Parekura Horomia in Parliament after he hinted he did not agree with the policy. But he fudged the issue and scoffed at rare criticism by National's Georgina te Heu Heu, who said he was sitting in a cabinet that had "trampled all over the mana" of the Waitangi Tribunal.

At the end of the fractious week, Helen Clark said it was the second leg of the principle, on contemporary claims, that had been forgotten by the MPs.

Oil and gas claims like last week's were classed as "contemporary" claims, not "historic" claims like those settled with Tainui and Ngai Tahu.

Historic claims were the Government's priority.

"It wasn't wiping discussion of the matter for all time. It is still an issue to be discussed under the contemporary claims label.

"If Willie had reflected before opening his mouth, he could have claimed credit for the fact that it was something subject to ongoing and policy development.

"You couldn't get anyone more sympathetic than me on these issues, but what I know is that if you toss it into the historic claims process, you completely wreck the historic claims process."

Crown lawyer Virginia Hardy told the tribunal that recognition of iwi rights to the billion-dollar petroleum industry would throw the treaty settlement policy into turmoil. The Government had received at least $9 billion from petroleum since 1970, she said.

The issue of unfairness of settlement was raised in the submission of the manager of the Office of Treaty Settlements, Andrew Hampton.

"The uncertain nature of the value of petroleum as an asset means that its use as settlement redress is unlikely to foster the objectives of fairness and durability," he said. "If the petroleum interest is subsequently found to have been overvalued this will disadvantage the claimant group who received it as part of their commercial redress package.

"Conversely, if the interest in petroleum has been undervalued as part of the settlement quantum the claimant groups concerned will have received a greater amount of commercial redress than is appropriate for them when compared to other claimant groups. In contrast, the provision of land and cash redress provide more certain courses of financial redress."

The Waitangi Tribunal expects to deliver its findings on petroleum before Christmas.