10. RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) Link to this
to the Attorney-General
How does the Government’s review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act reflect the Cabinet-agreed principles that the development of a new regime must reflect the Treaty of Waitangi, its principles, and related jurisprudence?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) Link to this
The Crown’s duty of active protection of Māori property interests as guaranteed by the Treaty is reflected by the repeal of Labour’s 2004 Act, the restoration of uninvestigated customary title, which was extinguished by that Act, and the establishment of awards that will recognise the relationship of tangata whenua with the foreshore and seabed. The development of the new regime in good faith, and in consultation with the public, the Māori Party, and iwi leaders, reflects the Treaty and its principles. Finally, the restoration of that fundamental human right of access to justice, which was lost under the 2004 Act, reflects the article 3 guarantee of the rights of all citizens of this country.
What did the Minister mean when he said, in reference to customary title, “The fact that the title is different doesn’t mean it’s inferior in any way.”?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
Under the new regime it will be different, but I emphasise that it is not inferior; “different” does not mean “inferior”. An example would be that freehold title is able to be sold, and customary title will not be. Certainly, that is what the iwi groups that I have spoken to are very, very keen to see.
Hon Maryan Street Link to this
Now that customary title will be able to be visited either through the courts or in separate negotiations with the Government, what are the risks of destabilising existing Treaty of Waitangi settlements; in particular, how does he reconcile the new regime with section 10 of the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act and the principle of full and final settlement?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
The principle of full and final settlement is not affected at all. For example, if Ngāi Tahu—notwithstanding section 10 of the Act—feel that they have an issue about an aspect of the foreshore and seabed that is not covered by the Act and that they want to come and talk to the Government about, they are welcome to do so. There could well be, in the rohe on Ngāi Tahu, extant customary rights that need to be investigated.
What will be the benefits for customary title-holders in relation to non-nationalised minerals, and what minerals are included within the scope of this proposal?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
Those who have a customary title will be able to own the non-nationalised minerals within their areas of recognised customary title. This applies to all minerals except gold, silver, uranium, and petroleum. Petroleum, of course, was nationalised by the first Labour Government in 1937; Labour is very good at doing that sort of thing.
Hon Tariana Turia Link to this
I seek leave to read the statement on the foreshore and seabed made by the Hon Parekura Horomia in June 2003, when he was the Minister of Māori Affairs and he said the land—[ Interruption]
Mr SPEAKERThe member must resume her seat. [ Interruption] There will be no interjections. Leave is sought for the member to read that statement. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.
Hon Nanaia Mahuta Link to this
I seek leave to table the review panel’s report, which was ignored by the Government.
Hon Tariana Turia Link to this
I seek leave of the House to table the statement that the Hon Parekura Horomia made in June 2003.