Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers

The question was originally put down to the Prime Minister, and I seek leave that it be held over until the Prime Minister is here.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.

Foreshore and Seabed—Crown Ownership

1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Associate Minister of Justice: Does the Government’s announcement, that it will introduce legislation to provide for Crown ownership of the seabed and foreshore, prevent anyone from making an application to the Māori Land Court for title to the seabed and foreshore?

The intention of proposed legislation is to give clear expression to the Crown’s ownership of foreshore and seabed for the benefit of all New Zealanders. It is also the Government’s intention to preserve the ability of Māori claimants to pursue claims to the foreshore and seabed, compatible with the Crown’s ownership rights.

💬 Hon Bill English: Why did the Prime Minister make statements giving the impression that the Māori claims were blocked, when, in fact, it is Government policy that those claims can continue before the Māori Land Court, and the Māori Land Court will have the capacity today, tomorrow—even when the legislation is introduced—to decide whether there is customary ownership?

It is the Government’s intention to balance the interests of all parties in this matter. It is also the Government’s intention, as it is stated, to look now at the detail to ensure how those interests can be reconciled in the interests of all New Zealanders.

💬 Tim Barnett: If the Government did not legislate, is it possible that the court processes could result in someone being given exclusive title to part of the ocean?

Yes.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: When the Associate Minister said on the Holmes programme this morning: “What the Government should do under those circumstances, when the law has not been clarified, is that we are announcing that in principle we are going to clarify it”, could she tell us what legal principle this is, and why does she and others in this House who for years have been passing separatist legislation not fly a white flag and admit it?

The principle is that of parliamentary sovereignty.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Is not the real situation that the Court of Appeal found that customary use rights—customary access—to the foreshore was the equivalent of customary ownership, so when the Minister says that the Government rejects Māori ownership of the foreshore but it accepts Māori claim to customary use and access, that is a piece of sophistry, and, in fact, what the Government is doing is agreeing to hand over our foreshore to a select number of New Zealanders?

No, and no.

💬 Metiria Turei: Does the Minister agree that the Court of Appeal decision reflects the common law principles of aboriginal title applicable in New Zealand, and as were applied in Australia in the Mabo case, and does she agree that te tiriti creates even stronger obligations on the Crown to consult Māori rather than legislating, as she proposes?

No, I do not accept that the Court of Appeal decision does what the member says, but I do accept that the recent Australian decisions have, in fact, decided that there is no exclusionary use of waterways in aboriginal title; and, yes, there will be consultation with Māori in terms of working through the detail as to what legislation will be, ensuring that everyone’s rights are protected.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: In the legislation that the Minister is foreshadowing, how will the rights of recreational users and fishers other than customary users be protected?

That is precisely what has to be made clear. It is the interests of all parties. One starts from the fundamental principle that if there is ownership in the Crown, then it is for the Crown to ensure that those interests—Māori interests, as well as recreational interests, and commercial interests—are protected. It is a balancing of interests.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Associate Minister seen the comments of her colleague Tariana Turia: “They want the Government to overrule a unanimous decision by the Court of Appeal.”, and her similar comments made on the issue of oil and gas in Taranaki, and could she please tell us what legal principles she has been informing her colleague about, when she rises in this House and says that nothing has been done in respect of challenging a Court of Appeal decision?

If I understand the questions, no, I have not seen the comment of my colleague. The Court of Appeal decision related to jurisdiction and to access, and that is not what has been challenged. In that process, however, the end point of the application to the Māori Land Court would lead to a private title in land, and that is what was the concern of the Government.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, I am asking for a very clear answer to a legal question. The reality is that Judge Hingston made that an issue when he said—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no, let me finish.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will please be seated. That is not a point of order.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: It is.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member has not yet come to one. The Minister is giving an answer. The member has an opportunity to ask her in a supplementary—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, she has given a long, extended answer, none of which relates to my question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will please be seated while I am on my feet or I will not call the member again.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, wait until I have finished my point of order.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will leave the Chamber.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, you can run a protection racket if you like, but the reality is that I want some answers in this House and so does everybody else. We have put up with this rubbish for years.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If the member does not leave he will be named, as well.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I don’t mind if you name me, Mr Speaker. I know what my name is.

Question time interrupted.