Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers

, on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes and yes.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is the case, what do the Prime Minister and her erstwhile deputy intend to discuss with the Māori members of the Labour Party caucus?

What we intend to discuss with them, and with others outside this Parliament, is how to reconcile the traditional rights of all New Zealanders to access to the foreshore and seabed with the customary rights of Māori.

💬 Hon Bill English: Does the Prime Minister agree that legislation that confirms that the Crown owns the seabed and the foreshore will have the effect of extinguishing customary title—exactly the customary title that Māori members believe is the source of their customary rights?

No.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Can the Prime Minister explain to the House why her Government is continuing to negotiate the transfer of ownership of the shore and bed of 14 Rotorua lakes, when the public access issues there are a direct parallel to the foreshore and seabed issues?

That is a specific historical claim, and is very similar to the agreement arrived at by the previous Government in respect of Lake Taupo.

💬 Metiria Turei: Given the serious concerns raised by Māori over the foreshore issue, and given the statement of opposition made by Labour’s own Māori caucus, will the Prime Minister now commit to ensuring that the Government will now act honourably, engage with Māori in a good-faith dialogue, and, as a sincere gesture of reconciliation, withdraw its threat to use a legislative hammer against Māori customary title?

The Government has acted honourably throughout, and will enter into discussions with a range of people, including the Māori caucus, which is the only fully mandated body in New Zealand with full electoral representation. That will be designed to achieve an outcome whereby the traditional rights of all New Zealanders, including Māori, are reconciled with Māori customary rights.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: Does the Prime Minister agree with the assertion of her colleague the Associate Minister of Māori Affairs that the outcome to be sought here ought to be one where mum, dad, and the kids can continue to go to the beach to have a barbecue in the way that they do today, and if she does agree with that assertion, will she give the House an assurance that any legislative changes will enshrine that right?

Yes, though I doubt whether that exact wording is likely to be used in the statute.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the right lies with the Crown and, therefore, the Māori right is extinguished by that statement, what is there to reconcile, other than that her Māori members will play lapdog on this issue?

As that member is Mr Bolger’s ex-poodle, I can assure him that none of the Māori members—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, the member will—

I withdraw and apologise. If there was any suggestion—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He should withdraw and apologise.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: He said precisely that.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, he did not. He should withdraw and apologise.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: He did.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, he did not.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I heard him. Please be seated.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member had better not challenge my word in any way. I heard him.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: You might have heard him, but I did not, nor did anybody down here, and they have just told me so.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Please be seated. I heard the member withdraw and apologise.

If any of my Māori colleagues are to be seen as lapdogs, can I say they certainly have some bite! Might I say that the Government’s position remains what it is—that Māori customary rights are not to be extinguished. They are to be recognised, and to be reconciled with the traditional rights of New Zealanders, which previously have been expressed in terms of the assumption of a Crown title.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: How can the Prime Minister claim that it is a win-win situation, when for generations New Zealanders in this country have had free access to our coastline, foreshore, and seabed, and there is now a proposal to have special, privileged, restricted use by one class of New Zealanders, based on the arrival date of their forebears?

The member is not aware that general freehold title can co-exist with other rights over land. I suspect he has never had even an easement over his own property.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the answer we have been given in this House today mean that there will be a different law for Māori, as opposed to the rest of New Zealand, on the issue of the foreshore and seabed—yes or no?

My understanding is that Māori customary rights could pertain only to Māori. However, I will seek any reports that might be available from the member that would suggest otherwise.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not think we have to put up with smart alec answers like that. The reality is the riparian right is not restricted to Māori, and many people know that—though he does not. I am asking whether there will be a different law, and I do not need a smart alec answer of that type. He has not found a new way to answer the question. And he got it wrong in the law as well.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Minister addressed the question.

💬 Hon Bill English: As the Minister has referred in each answer to Māori customary rights in respect of the seabed and the foreshore, can he tell us what those customary rights are?

Obviously not. The purpose of any law—[Interruption] Well, what the Court of Appeal ruled, if the member cares to think about it, is that Māori could apply to have those customary rights recognised through the Māori Land Court. It is up to individual iwi and hapū to make a claim as to what those rights are in their case. It was a silly question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No. The last comment is to be withdrawn.

I withdraw. I shall simply think that.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, no, no. Now the member will withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister’s answer mean that this Government thinks that the Court of Appeal got the decision wrong; if that is not the case, what does it intend to legislate when the issue is related to title?

What the Government intends to legislate is about how we reconcile the traditional rights of all New Zealanders—expressed very well by Mr Peter Dunne—with the fact of Māori customary rights. I am fascinated that parties opposite are arguing that property right should be extinguished by legislation—particularly, the party which most stands by property rights.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I seek leave to table a website posting of the Prime Minister’s, dated 22 June 2003, stating that ownership of the foreshore and seabed has long been considered to lie with the Crown.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table an article dated 24 June in which the Attorney-General says that the Crown is going to clarify that, in fact, the seabed and foreshore are owned by all New Zealanders in the form of the Crown.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Budget 2003—Growth Targets

2. GORDON COPELAND (United Future) to the Minister of Finance: Is he confident that the growth targets projected in this year’s Budget can be met; if so, why?

Strictly speaking, the Budget sets growth forecasts rather than growth targets. At present I see no reason to believe that they will not be met.

💬 Gordon Copeland: Is the Minister concerned that significant effects on the economy, such as job losses and reduced consumer demand, will result from the downturn in the export education industry, which is currently our fourth-biggest foreign exchange earner at $1.8 billion per annum, given that the number of student visa applications from China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong in March were down 30 percent on last year; if so, what solution does he propose?

Yes. That has already been the subject of some discussion at Cabinet committee level. The Minister of Education has reported that significant efforts are being put in to widen the catchment areas for overseas education, away from an over-dependence on the North Asian markets.

💬 Mark Peck: What is the growth forecast track in the Budget, and how much confidence does the Minister have in it?

The Budget forecast growth of 2.2 percent in the 2003-04 year, followed by, in effect, 3.2, 3.1, and 2.8 percent. The risks, which were on the downside at the time of the drawing up of those forecasts, have significantly reduced, particularly around severe acute respiratory syndrome, the electricity situation, and the performance of the United States economy.

💬 Hon David Carter: Why should New Zealanders have any faith in his Government achieving even Budget forecasts, particularly given Business and Economic Research Ltd’s release yesterday, which said: “Economic mismanagement has choked out a perfectly sound period of growth and we are in for 2 to 3 years of a stalled economy.”?

A slow-down to 2.2 percent growth will, by international standards, still be a very high level. Most of Europe is forecast to have growth of about 1 percent or less over the coming year. Of course, part of that criticism was based on a view that the Reserve Bank Governor was operating monetary policy too tightly. It is clear that the present Governor loosened monetary policy earlier than his predecessor would have done.

💬 Gordon Copeland: Even if foreign students can be sourced from countries outside Asia, and assuming that terrorist threats to travellers and a high dollar prove to be temporary dampeners on the export education industry, does he agree that negative reports in the international media on our attitude to foreigners, arising from New Zealand First’s xenophobic policy line, pose a more enduring problem for the economy?

I think there is little doubt that adverse reports of that sort do badly affect that industry.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I want to say that, on reflection, that question had an unnecessary comment in it. I would like the member now to ask it without that reference to New Zealand First in it, so that I can hear it fully. Please re-ask the question. The Minister is not responsible for New Zealand First policy.

💬 Gordon Copeland: Even if foreign students can be sourced from countries outside Asia, and assuming that terrorist threats to travellers and a high dollar prove to be temporary dampeners on the export education industry, does he agree that negative reports in the international media on our attitude to foreigners pose a more enduring problem for the economy?

Yes. That kind of negative reporting about our attitude to foreigners does not affect just the export education industry; I think it affects our general trade and investment relationships.

💬 Gordon Copeland: As State schools also rely on the income provided by foreign fee-paying students to finance capital works and extra staff, has he made provision for additional pressure on the education budget, as a result of the downturn in the export education industry?

No, not at this point, because it is expected that the impact on the secondary system is not likely to be great in the short term, as there will be students continuing on from previous years. But, clearly, we do keep monitoring the situation. It is one of significant concern to the Government.

Foreshore and Seabed—Crown Ownership

3. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Is it her Government’s policy that ownership of the seabed and foreshore lies with the Crown, and does this mean that Māori will never gain ownership of the seabed and foreshore?

, on behalf of the Prime Minister: It is the Government’s policy that we will act to uphold rights of public access to, and use of, the foreshore and seabed for all New Zealanders, while at the same time protecting Māori customary rights.

💬 Hon Bill English: As the Prime Minister would not answer that question, will she answer this one: is the Government’s proposed legislation intended to prevent Māori proving customary title to the seabed and foreshore?

We are at a very early stage of discussions, but what I can say is that there is no intention to use legislation to prevent Māori from establishing customary rights.

💬 Stephen Franks: Will the Prime Minister guarantee that the customary rights deal that the Government is seeking will not mean that a Pākehā might be stopped from throwing a fishing line off a beach while his Māori neighbour carries on?

I think it depends on what his Māori neighbour is carrying on doing.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: On reflection, I wonder whether the Minister—

Mr Speaker, “carries on” has a specific meaning that I was trying to avoid in that context.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, no. I wonder whether the Minister could actually address the question.

Customary rights may exist for some groups, as they do in many societies. They are established by legal processes that we hope legislation will help to clarify. General rights of access and usage will be ensured by legislation.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister to take some legal advice on this matter and understand that the Court of Appeal has said that a right of Māori ownership and title—and a customary right, as well—may well exist now; if that is the case, does the Government propose legislation to foreclose on that customary right and title in respect of all of the seabed that Māori are claiming on?

Customary title can only arise out of customary rights. There is no intention to legislate to override customary rights. They are established historical rights, and guaranteed by the treaty.

💬 Hon Bill English: Why cannot the Government just state in Parliament what it has worked so hard to get New Zealanders to believe in public—that its proposed legislation is intended to prevent Māori from proving customary title to the seabed and the foreshore; and why cannot the Prime Minister say that here and now, having dodged the answer five times already today?

There is no intention to legislate to override customary rights. I note the member was unable to state his position at all, describing it as “irrelevant, in any case”.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why are a number of editorial writers in this country firmly of the opinion and writing articles on the abolition of that right by way of law—a position the Prime Minister firmly planted in their minds—yet in this House she has not had the integrity to—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No. That is an indictment on a member’s integrity, and is out of order. The member will rephrase the question.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why has she not shown sufficient respect for this institution to stand and give us a plain, direct, and honest answer of the nature she imparted to editorial writers in this country when the issue first broke?

The Government bears no responsibility for editorial writers in New Zealand.

💬 Stephen Franks: Can I take it from the Prime Minister’s eventual answer to my previous question that she will not rule out, in the deal she wants, the possibility of areas of beach and seabed where Māori have rights that their Pākehā neighbours cannot share?

If a group of people, whoever they are, have customary rights, those rights pertain to that group.

💬 Hon Bill English: Given the Prime Minister’s refusal six times in this House today to answer a direct question about whether the Government intends to extinguish Māori customary title, can we now draw the conclusion that the Government does not intend to legislate to extinguish Māori customary title?

If the member cares to read the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, he will find that the Māori Land Court does not actually have the power to grant customary title.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Prime Minister give the House, for the last time, one very clear answer—does the Government intend to introduce legislation to change the current import of the law, as reported by the Court of Appeal, to the extent that it will remove the customary title rights of Māori to the seabed and foreshore; yes or no?

Members keep asking a question about something that does not exist—customary title. Customary rights exist in New Zealand. The Māori Land Court is unable to grant customary title. One of the issues required to be addressed is how legislation can provide clearly for Māori customary rights, while preserving the rights of all New Zealanders for access and usage.

Government Superannuation Fund—Unfunded Liability

4. ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: What is the projected change in the net unfunded liability of the Government Superannuation Fund for the year to 30 June 2003, and how does this compare with the projected net change in the 2002 Budget?

Since the 2002 Budget Economic and Fiscal Update, the unfunded past-service liability for the Government Superannuation Fund has increased by $2.4 billion.

💬 Rod Donald: How much did overseas investment losses contribute to the deterioration of the unfunded past-service liability of the Government Superannuation Fund in each of the last 2 years, and how do these results compare with the performance expectations of the fund—that there is a no more than 1-year-in-6 chance of an unexpected deterioration of more than $200 million in any one year?

Unfortunately, I do not have those exact numbers, but I can tell the member that the bulk of that $2.4 billion change is due to interest rate changes and the application of a discount rate that has reduced over the last year. Those tend to be cyclical changes, which reverse out over time. The international markets have been bear markets for the last 3 years, and, as I heard somebody comment at the weekend, if we all invested just in property—as a certain party does—we would not necessarily do any better over the long term.

💬 Hon David Carter: With the Government Superannuation Fund having made significant losses during the last 2 years, how confident is the Minister that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund will achieve a greater than 9 percent annual return, as he has consistently predicted?

Those are not my predictions; those are Treasury’s numbers applied to—[Interruption] It is not a matter of washing one’s hands. In my experience, no Government in recent times has been responsible for the numbers. The basic numbers apply to the Government; Treasury produces the numbers. The board of guardians of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund—[Interruption] I am interested to learn that that is what the National Party did. I shall go back and look with interest at some of their Budget exercises now.

💬 Rod Donald: Can the Minister confirm that the Government Superannuation Fund will now need to earn 9.6 percent after tax for the next 8½ years to meet its own investment target of 6.5 percent over its first 10 years; and is he concerned that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund will fail to meet its expected performance targets, too, given that the deputy chair of the Government Superannuation Fund is the chair of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, and that both funds use Frank Russell Co. as advisers?

There are a number of questions there. The principal advisers to the board of guardians are not the firm of Frank Russell Co. It uses different advisers, and has only subsidiary advisers in Frank Russell Co. The member should wait for the asset allocation before rushing to comment on it. The board has not made up its mind yet on that. This fund is not to be drawn down for 20 years, so performance over the next few years is largely irrelevant—taking the longer-term view. I remind the member again, as I remind members opposite, that over the last 80 or 90 years, on average, equities have outperformed Government bonds, etc., and any fund that takes a long-term view will be balanced between the two.

💬 Hon David Carter: With the Government Superannuation Fund having made significant losses during the last 2 years, how confident is the Minister that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund will achieve a greater than 9 percent annual return—as Treasury had predicted, and on which figure he then sold this package to New Zealand?

That was not the basis on which the package was sold; the basis was securing the future of New Zealand superannuation. I note that only a couple of parties in this House are clearly prepared to sign up to that package in terms of both funding and payment.

💬 Rod Donald: Does the Minister agree that extending the 6 percent savings incentive currently available to employees earning more than $60,000 to those hard-working New Zealanders who earn less than $60,000 would be a better way to use taxes than the Superannuation Fund gambling them on the overseas sharemarket; and how much would such a policy cost?

To extend what is proposed in the bill introduced this afternoon and go to that 6 percent differential would cost an additional $54 million a year—I think it is. But the member misses the point. That is about private savings. I trust that the Green Party is not now suggesting that there is a trade-off between private savings and New Zealand superannuation.

Foreshore and Seabed—Crown Ownership

5. GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Will he be advising the Government that ownership or title to the seabed and foreshore should, for the best interests of Māori, be held by the Crown; if not, why not?

I will be working with my Government colleagues, in the best interests of the country, to find a balance between Māori customary rights and the ability of all New Zealanders to access the foreshore and seabed. The goal is to ensure that on the way to nationhood we get a positive result.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: When he and his Government colleagues meet with the Māori Council next week to discuss this issue, will he be attending that meeting as a Government Minister representing the Crown and the Crown’s interests, or as a Māori member of Parliament representing Māori interests in being able to claim the foreshore and seabed?

We will, firstly, meet with more than the Māori Council. I cannot avoid being a Māori, and I am also a member of a collective Cabinet. I will be at the meeting as both.

💬 Mita Ririnui: Is he confident that the interests of all New Zealanders will be accommodated in the Government’s process for dealing with this matter?

Yes, I am confident that in working through this process we will reconcile Māori customary rights with all New Zealanders’ ability to access the foreshore and seabed.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister agree with the statement by Moana Jackson, a lawyer who gave his view on this matter when he said: “To remove the right to title is actually to deny the customary right. If I can give an example, a person who wants to put down a new lawn on their quarter acre section can only exercise their right if they have title to the land. If they don’t have title to the land, then they have to get permission from the landlord, and that is what Margaret Wilson is obscuring.”; does he agree with that point of view, and is that point of view shared by his Māori colleagues?

Mr Jackson is a well-respected Māori and has a skill that a lot of people in the Opposition do not have. Certainly he is welcome to his opinion, and at the moment we are working through our opinion collectively in this Government.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have been asking questions on this issue all week. All that we have had is a whole lot of obfuscation and evasion. I have put to the Minister precisely the legal position, asking him not what he answered but whether he agrees with that legal position—yes or no. Surely we can have an answer on that score.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member asked the question, and the Minister said the Government was working through it. That addresses that question.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not ask him for the Government’s view. I was particular about asking the Minister for his view. I do not want to be told that the Government’s answer is adequate in this case. I asked him for his view as the Minister responsible for Māori affairs, and I think we deserve an answer. For you to say that the Government is working through it, and it is the Government’s view, is not what I asked him. I asked him what his view is, and I think this House should have an answer.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Minister is a member of the Government, and he can address the question in that way.

💬 Rodney Hide: Does he agree that legislation is needed to ensure that the ownership of the foreshore and seabed remains with the Crown, or is he not prepared to tell the House the answer to that?

The Government has formulated a group consisting of senior Cabinet Ministers and members of the Māori caucus to discuss that very issue.

💬 Mita Ririnui: How will the Government reassure Māori that their issues will be addressed?

One of our Government’s greatest strengths has been its willingness to engage with Māori and to enter into dialogue with people from all sectors across the community, and this issue is no exception—end of story.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Does he agree with the statement by the Māori Fisheries Commission chairman, Maui Solomon, who says: “I think it is a bit contradictory—I think it is confusing, actually—to say that you know there is going to be a clarification that ownership rests with the Crown, but Māori rights, customary rights, are going to be preserved.”?

If Mr Solomon was the chairman of the Māori Fisheries Commission, I could understand that question. He is not the chairman of the Māori Fisheries Commission.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I concede that this is one of those occasions where I have been caught out by that sharp Minister. Mr Edwards has earned his dollar today. I seek leave of the House to ask the question again, without the wrong address being given to Maui Solomon.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will go halfway with the member. I will ask the Minister to assume that Mr Solomon is not the chairman of the Māori Fisheries Commission. Could he give an answer to the question?

That is his opinion. One thing with this Government and this Māori caucus is that we respect the opinion of all Māori, from Mr Jackson to Mr Solomon.

💬 Rodney Hide: Does he stand by his statement in this House yesterday that he, as a Māori, has customary rights to the seabed and foreshore not enjoyed by non-Māori; will he tell this House what he believes those rights are, or is that something he is prepared to say only on a marae?

I do not recall saying that. I say that some Māori have married Pākehā, and some Pākehā have married Māori, so we have to work out where everybody gets a fair share and a fair say in this, and cut the marae business out.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have a situation where the Minister cannot remember that he said in the House: “It has been my understanding that Māori have customary rights.”, and then went on to speak about himself having those rights. Now he is saying that he cannot answer the question because he cannot remember saying that. Having reminded him of what he said, I suggest he be asked to say whether he stands by that, and to clarify that.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, the Minister might have said that at the start of the answer, but then he went on to address the question.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the greatest of respect, to hear a little diatribe on the framework of this country and on the question of keeping away from the marae from the Minister did not address the question he was asked in any way, shape, or form. He was asked whether he stands by his words of yesterday. He denied his words of yesterday, and left the whole thing alone completely. We have no answer, as far as that Minister goes. I say to you, Mr Speaker, that I have spent some time in the last few weeks watching two Parliaments in operation: Australia’s, which is on television, and the British Parliament. Frankly, this Parliament is an abiding disgrace when it comes to question time. You might have a different view, but I am giving you mine. Over there, the Ministers answer questions, which are not questions on notice. These Ministers are given 4 hours’ notice and still they do not answer questions.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Let me just say that I listen to the Australian Parliament too, and very rarely is a supplementary question ever heard at all. The Minister has 3 minutes to answer a question, and the questioner has about 40 seconds to ask it. That is an issue that every Government of Australia states it will change when it comes into office, and never does.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I seek leave that we adopt the Australian practice at question time.

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

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do want to challenge your ruling, because this is outrageous. There are two standards in operation for this Minister. That can in no way—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Rodney Hide: I am not sitting down—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member sits or he goes.

💬 Rodney Hide: No, I want to—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member leaves.

💬 Rodney Hide: OK. I will leave.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member leaves.

💬 Rodney Hide: There is no point here—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: A member cannot challenge the Speaker’s ruling. The member will please leave.

💬 Rodney Hide: There’s no point in asking questions here.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will name the member if he says another word. The member will please leave.

💬 Rodney Hide: There is still no point—

Question time interrupted.