9. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) Link to this
to the Attorney-General
Given his answer yesterday that he agreed with the Prime Minister’s statement earlier this year, “in the end if we can’t reach an agreement then the status quo will remain”, what acknowledgment, if any, has he received from the Māori Party that the new legal framework for settling foreshore and seabed claims will be “durable”?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) Link to this
The Prime Minister’s statement about the status quo referred to what might happen if a replacement regime could not be agreed on. The Government has developed a replacement regime that balances the rights and interests of all New Zealanders. The Māori Party has indicated that it is going to support the bill, so the issue of remaining with the status quo does not arise.
Will the Government stay with the status quo under the existing Foreshore and Seabed Act if the Māori Party refuses to accept the new legislation as a full and final settlement of the legal framework to deal with foreshore and seabed claims?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
I have already said that the Māori Party is supporting the bill—and I am not surprised that it is, because the bill deals with certain fundamental matters. It restores the right of access to justice that was lost under the 2004 Act. It restores uninvestigated customary title, and it recalibrates the tests for determining customary title. These are very good advances and I believe they will be seen to be a durable and lasting solution.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister know of any precedents of law seen to be durable in the public eye, coming back to Parliament to be revisited because of a change in time or circumstance?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
There are many examples. For example, the limitation law that was recently passed was a great day for black-letter law. It updated the law of limitation for the first time in 60 years to respond to particular needs. Another example would be the excellent bill that had its first reading last night to repeal the Military Manoeuvres Act 1915 because of changed circumstances. The copyright legislation is another example. It began life as the Statute of Anne in 1714. Since then there have been numerous amendments with the march of technology.
How can the Attorney-General claim that the new legal framework for determining foreshore and seabed claims will be “durable”, to use his word, when the Māori Party is saying it will have another go in the future, even before his bill has had a first reading?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
It will be durable because it deals with the fundamental issues of access to justice, restoration of uninvestigated customary title, and tests that are more realistic than those set out in the 2004 Act. Political parties may have different views, depending on the passage of time. For example, a Darren Hughes - led Labour Party in 2040 may have a different view—
Mr SPEAKERI apologise to the honourable member. I say to National members on this occasion that the interjection level is so high that I cannot hear the questioner, even though he is right beside me.
How can the Minister claim that he has reached any meaningful agreement with the Māori Party to settle foreshore and seabed issues, when, as soon as this bill has passed, it will seek to change it?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
I doubt whether it will seek the change of the right of access to justice and the restoration of uninvestigated customary title, because those are fundamental matters that that member’s Government took away from a significant section of the New Zealand public—[ Interruption] and Mr Jones should be disgusted with that—and this legislation restores it.
When the Attorney General said “I don’t think people want to be relitigating this every decade,” was he ruling out National agreeing to any substantial change to his foreshore and seabed legislation in the foreseeable future?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
I think the Prime Minister has made that more than tolerably clear—that we are very happy with the package that has been brought together. We believe that it is a significant improvement on the 2004 Act, which was discriminatory in the ways I have endeavoured to outline in answers to questions. It represents a durable and just solution to this problem, which was mucked up in 2004.