7. Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) Link to this
to the Attorney-General
Does he stand by his statements that Ngāti Kahu protesters at Taipā Bay can “go to hell” and “I think they’re stupid”, and can he assure New Zealanders that such protests are not a foretaste of things to come under his Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) Link to this
I did not make those comments as Attorney-General. They do not relate to my Attorney-General portfolio. They were made by me as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations in the context of an issue related to Treaty settlements. As to the second part of the question, I cannot see the connection between the bill and the protest. Just because a piece of land is in sight of the water, that does not make it a part of the foreshore. The occupation of the land in question was an occupation of dry land. The bill relates to the area below mean high-water springs—that is, the wet part of the beach, not dry, privately owned land.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have seen the Government shift questions around to the appropriate Minister. We submitted that question to the House. It was accepted for the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General has refused to answer it, saying that he never made those statements as Attorney-General, and therefore he has not answered the question. The question was accepted as legitimate, so it must have been authenticated. Indeed, if the Attorney-General did not want to answer the question as Attorney-General, he could have sent it to himself as Minister.
Mr SPEAKERI think I have heard the member at reasonable length on the issue. The Minister was purely pointing out that he made those statements as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. He did not deny making the statements. But the substance of his answer was that the issue of the occupation this question seems to relate to is not a matter to do with the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill—they are not occupying the foreshore or seabed. I think the Minister’s answer was perfectly reasonable. The member asked whether he can assure New Zealanders that such protests are not a foretaste; the Attorney-General argued that this protest does not relate to that legislation, in his view, because it is not foreshore and seabed that they are occupying. That is what I heard him say. I cannot judge the quality of the Minister’s answer; I believe that he made a perfectly reasonable attempt to answer that question. I think it is unreasonable to expect me, as Speaker, to adjudicate on the quality of the answer.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The primary question asked whether he stood by his statements. The Attorney-General never addressed that. He said that he made those statements as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, so he has not addressed that question. I accept your point that you cannot force him to answer it, but we lodged that question, it was authenticated—
I think the member is, forgive me, being a bit pernickety over it. The Minister has not denied making those statements; he was just helpful to the House in pointing out that he made them in his capacity as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. I did not see any resiling from them whatsoever. I presume he still stands by them as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. He was merely pointing out that he did not make them as the Attorney-General. It is perfectly reasonable to explain to the House the basis of the statements. He went on to answer the second part of the question in what I believe was a perfectly reasonable answer. I am afraid that I have judged that and there is nothing further I can do about that. The member has a further supplementary question.
Will he assure all Kiwi mums and dads and their children that for as long as he is Attorney-General they will continue to enjoy their traditional access to New Zealand’s beaches and coast to swim, surf, picnic, and fish as they have done in years past?
Will he, then, immediately resign if Māori groups, on gaining customary title, block Kiwis from their traditional use of the foreshore or seabed; if not, why not?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
No; it will not be necessary, because that sort of thing will not happen. In all the discussions I have had with iwi and hapū groups, that has not been an issue, notwithstanding the scaremongering of groups such as the Coastal Coalition.