Māori Development Minister Tama Potaka says he’s “looked over” his “notes” since reporters asked what he thought about the removal of the Treaty clause in RMA reforms, but he didn’t want to get into “semantic gymnastics”.
The clause required the principles of the Treaty to be upheld, as is included in the current RMA.
RMA Minister Chris Bishop confirmed on Monday Cabinet had agreed not to include the clause in the coalition’s proposed new legislation.
Earlier on Tuesday, Potaka told reporters it was the first he’d heard about it when asked.
Potaka has since told reporters it was “very confusing before.”
“I’ve looked over my notes, I know what’s going on now, I understand the context of the questions.”
He said he thought the questions were “mischaracterised”, saying they were “riff-offs” from Monday’s post-cabinet media conference.
It was pointed out to him the first question he was asked was what he thought about the removal of the clause, to which he responded it was the “first” he’d heard about it.
But he said “there were a number of riff-offs from what other people had said and I was trying to understand the context.”
He acknowledged he was a “little bit confused” but he was ready to answer questions now.
“I don’t want to get into semantic gymnastics”, Potaka said, “I do understand the context in which the question was asked and now I can respond fully.”
He said the coalition is committed to ensuring treaty provisions, settlements, and rights and interests like wāhi tapu are upheld in subsequent legislation.
When asked why he couldn’t explain the change and his position in more detail earlier, he says he wasn’t across the context in which the questions were asked.
‘The first I’ve heard of it’
When asked about the removed clause on Tuesday morning, Potaka said it was the “first time” he’d heard about it.
“The first I’ve heard of it is right now,” Potaka told reporters at Parliament. “I don’t know about that.”
“I haven’t seen any formal document in that respect.”
Potaka said he was aware the Prime Minister made an announcement on Monday, but he wasn’t “deep dark into the room at that stage listening to all of it”.
When asked if he was concerned that he wasn’t aware about the removed clause, Potaka said he didn’t know the context in which the questions were being asked.
“I didn’t see the stand up and I don’t know what Chris Bishop has talked to you about right now.”
When asked if he didn’t remember, or wasn’t consulted about the change, Potaka said he wasn’t across the specific comment made by Bishop.
Labour’s Willie Jackson said it’s not good enough, and shouldn’t have come as a surprise given the coalition had made its intention clear in that area.
“For him to be surprised now is a bit of a shock,” he said.
Jackson said he needs to do his homework.
“He’s the Minister in charge of kaupapa Māori, overseeing legislation right across the spectrum – I’m just very surprised to hear that.”
Jackson said Māori are being let down by the senior Māori minister, who he said isn’t doing his job.
“It’s incredibly important to have those treaty clauses in.”
He said their removal was consistent with the government’s “constant attack” on Māori issues.
Bishop was asked about Potaka’s comments, but said those questions should be directed at Potaka.
“I don’t know what’s in Tama’s head. But Cabinet has made a decision to not have a generic treaty clause in the RMA.”
When asked if Potaka was consulted directly, Bishop said “he’s a member of the Cabinet, so…”
Bishop added the new legislation will still recognise Treaty settlements, and Māori rights and interests, despite scrapping the long-standing treaty clause.
He said the government is not interested in a generic treaty clause.
“That is a different issue from the legitimate expectations of Māori that their role in the Resource Management system is recognised and protected.
“We are interested as a government in descriptive clauses that make it really clear for everyone – including iwi Māori and hapū – what their role is in the system, but also what the Crown’s role in the system is.”
Bishop said the problem with generic clauses is they are open ended, and create legal risk.
By Lillian Hanly for rnz.co.nz
