9. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) Link to this
to the Attorney-General
Is he aware of the widespread criticism of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill from both Māori and non-Māori submitters, and does he have confidence that the bill will provide a durable framework for consideration of foreshore and seabed claims?
Does the Minister intend to seek any assurance from the Māori Party that it accepts that the Government’s new foreshore and seabed bill will, if passed, fully and finally settle the legal framework for consideration of foreshore and seabed claims; and, if no such assurance is forthcoming, will he be willing to consider adopting the solution favoured by Labour, the Greens, the ACT Party, and many submitters—Māori and non-Māori—who say the issue of the threshold test, as well as that of unextinguished rights, ought to be referred back to the courts for statutory protection for access and non-alienation?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
I am not really quite certain where the Labour Party stands on this issue, because that may be the latest permutation but the submission by Dr Cullen—a very good submission—to the ministerial review panel emphasised the need for codification of the tests and said: “to wait upon protracted legal arguments developing in New Zealand jurisprudence in this respect would defeat the purpose of what many are seeking: both certainty and equity”. So in response to the second part of the member’s question, I would say certainly not, the suggestion is ridiculous.
Hon Tau HenareWhat does he think these criticisms mean in terms of finding a durable framework for consideration of foreshore and seabed claims?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
As I said in answer to the member’s supplementary question, Mr Goff seems to criticise the inclusion of tests to determine customary title but, as I said, that contrasts with what the submission to the ministerial panel by the Labour Party said. That said that the tests should be retained. Mr Goff also seems to think that we should just leave everything to the courts to decide, and again that contrasts with section 96 of the Foreshore and Seabed Act and Labour’s 2008 agreement with Ngāti Porou. So it is very hard to find out where the Labour Party stands on all this sort of thing. It is about as consistent as vomit.
Mr SPEAKERWill the Minister agree to amend the Government’s bill so as to require that any proposed agreement between Ministers and claimants to confer customary title under that bill would be referred to the courts for ratification as is currently required under the Foreshore and Seabed Act for negotiated agreements under that Act?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
Although the negotiated agreements deal with foreshore and seabed reserves, what I have said all along is that when the submissions have been concluded I will have a good look at them, and if there are issues that need to be addressed, they will be addressed. That is the sensible thing to do when one is dealing with submissions that are still being heard by the select committee. I know that, for example, Waikato-Tainui and Ngāti Porou are yet to make their submissions to the select committee.
Hon John Boscawen Link to this
What does he make of Mr “Quinten” Hay’s submission on the bill, or has he not bothered to read it?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
I think the member probably means Mr Quentin Hay, who is a former partner of mine in Bell Gully. If that is the person, I have not read it but I certainly will. Then I will give the member my considered view.
Hon John Boscawen Link to this
Was Mr Quentin Hay correct in his submission when he said that the Attorney-General must have been misreported in the comment—
The Minister has no responsibility whatsoever for answering whether someone was correct. The member can ask about his opinion on certain things but he cannot ask him to accept responsibility as to whether someone is correct, when the Minister has no responsibility for that person whatsoever.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I think that the second clause of the member’s question brought it in, because it went to whether—
I was about to let the member rephrase his question. I ask John Boscawen to rephrase his question to bring it within the Standing Orders.
Hon John Boscawen Link to this
Does the Attorney-General agree with Mr Quentin Hay, who said the Attorney-General must have been misreported in the comment that ministerial deals provided for in clause 93 are akin to the settlement of a private dispute, because the Attorney-General’s argument is “fallacious”?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
That sounds like Mr Hay. No, as I have said, I have not read the submission. With the greatest of respect to Mr Boscawen, I am always very wary of listening to selective quotation. I will read the submission and then I will give him my considered view.