1. DAVID GARRETT (ACT) Link to this
to the Attorney-General
Further to the Prime Minister’s answer to oral question No. 3 yesterday, what are “the concerns that New Zealanders had about solely having Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed”, and how does the Government’s proposal to legislate for iwi ownership of the foreshore and seabed alleviate these concerns?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) Link to this
Many concerns have been raised—for example, that the Foreshore and Seabed Act violates property rights, the rule of law, citizens’ right to go to the courts for justice, and the principle of having one law for all. These were the concerns raised by, among others, the then ACT Party leader Richard Prebble in 2004, when his party opposed the current legislation. Mr Prebble also prophesied that the Act would do great and lasting damage to racial harmony. The Government’s proposal protects property rights and removes the discriminatory elements of the current Act.
Will the proposed legislation weaken the test in section 50 of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, which requires, in order for customary title to be granted, uses or practices to have been carried on since 1840 that are integral to tikanga Māori; if so, in what way will the test for customary title be weakened?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
The overarching test will be exclusive use and occupation, without substantial interruption. The test has some emphasis on tikanga Māori. I do not believe that the overall changes will be very great, at all.
Hon Jim AndertonDoes the loss of sole Crown title of the foreshore and seabed in any way reduce the rights of any New Zealander in relation to the foreshore and seabed?
Does he agree with the Prime Minister when he said yesterday in relation to the foreshore and seabed: “We are not giving it away.”; if so, what will iwi have to pay for the 10 percent of the foreshore and seabed that he estimates they will get?
If the loss of sole Crown title of the foreshore and seabed is not going to reduce the rights of any New Zealander in relation to it, why is the National Government doing it?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
I gave the answer to that in my answer to the primary question. It is because there was substantial concern among a significant section of the public that the 2004 Act is discriminatory. It removed the right of access to justice for a significant percentage of New Zealanders, and it removed uninvestigated customary title, and those matters needed to be addressed.
Does the Minister think that New Zealanders are more concerned about Crown ownership of the entire Northland coastline, from Maunganui to the North Cape and down to Hokianga, or more concerned about Professor Margaret Mutu’s statement: “we own it”?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
I think that most New Zealanders are very concerned about ensuring that a significant percentage of the New Zealand population has access to justice and has the right to at least be able to try to prove their case in court. That is what this legislation change is all about.
Hon John KeyDid Michael Cullen’s submission on behalf of the Labour Party contain most of the changes recommended under the proposed new foreshore and seabed legislation?
Mr SPEAKERI am not sure whether the Minister has responsibility for Michael Cullen’s submission. The Prime Minister may reword his question.
What reports has the Attorney-General received about Labour’s submission by Michael Cullen about proposed changes to the foreshore and seabed legislation, and do they look a lot like the changes that the National Government is proposing?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
I have received very, very positive reports indeed. Dr Cullen’s contribution was extremely positive, and many of the proposals that he suggested have indeed been incorporated, because they go a long way towards alleviating the problems caused by the Stalinist Act introduced by the previous Labour Government. [ Interruption]