10. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) Link to this
to the Attorney-General
Is his objective under the new foreshore and seabed bill to settle the protracted controversy around foreshore and seabed?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) Link to this
The Government’s objective is to pass legislation that addresses the injustice of the current legislation, including the extinguishment of uninvestigated property rights and the removal of the right of people to go to court, and to balance the rights and interests of all New Zealanders, including the guarantee of public access. Hopefully this legislation will settle the protracted controversy around the issues of the foreshore and seabed.
Does the Attorney-General accept that the Labour Party has contributed constructively to the relatively benign political climate that has existed for the settlement of foreshore and seabed issues since the election, including by submitting to the review panel that the right of the court to confer a customary title should be restored, rather than relying upon negotiated outcomes that a future Government could frustrate?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
Yes. I have made it clear in this House on a number of occasions that I genuinely believe that the Opposition has engaged in the review, particularly with the submission of Dr Cullen, because I genuinely believe that that party wants this matter to be resolved in a just and durable manner for the benefit of all New Zealanders.
Has the Attorney-General been provided with an acknowledgment from the Māori Party leaders, the Hon Tariana Turia and the Hon Pita Sharples, that this bill, if passed, will represent a full and final settlement of the legal framework for foreshore and seabed rights?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
I have neither received nor asked for any particular written acknowledgment from my colleagues in the Māori Party. However, I have seen statements that they have made indicating their firm support for the legislation.
Will the Attorney-General be seeking an acknowledgment from the Māori Party leaders that this bill, if passed, will represent a full and final settlement of the legal framework for foreshore and seabed rights?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
No, I will not be seeking any such acknowledgment, nor can I reasonably be expected to. I have indicated to the House that the Māori Party has, through various public statements, indicated its support. I have worked very closely with it in the development of this legislation. Any questions of the Māori Party should be directed at the Māori Party.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. Has the Attorney-General seen the submission Te Hunga Roia Māori o Aotearoa, the Māori Law Society, presented to the ministerial review panel last year, which reported that “It remains a concern that a fundamental issue regarding customary and aboriginal rights was mismanaged by the Crown to such an extent that it caused gross racial tension.”? How does he think the new legislation will address such protracted and profound concerns emerging from Labour’s 2004 Act?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
I read that submission some time ago. I think the current bill addresses the core grievances associated with the current legislation—the ones I outlined in the answer to the primary question about extinguishment of uninvestigated customary title and the removal of that fundamental right of access to justice. The bill follows a period of extensive consultation that tries to balance the rights and interests of all New Zealanders.
Why will the Minister not agree to seek an acknowledgment from the Māori Party that this bill will represent a full and final settlement of the legal framework for foreshore and seabed rights, given that he has today told the House that he thinks it is important that as a country we settle this matter and move forward?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
Because I am very satisfied with the statements that the Māori Party has made, and it is not for me to go around demanding written acknowledgments from other political parties. I am a humble worker in the vineyard; those matters are best addressed to the Prime Minister.
David GarrettWhy was a version of section 40 of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004—a section that specifically prohibited iwi owners charging for beach use—not included in the new Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
Section 40 deals with foreshore and seabed reserves; there will be no such thing under the new legislation. We are dealing with customary title, and in previous answers to that member I have outlined how customary title will work.
Will he amend the bill to include a specific prohibition on Māori New Zealanders charging other New Zealanders for beach use, which he claimed in the House last week already existed; if not, why not?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
I maintain, I continue to maintain, and I will maintain until I bore everyone silly that the question of access is clear. If the member wishes to make a submission to the select committee or put down his concerns in writing to me, I will, of course, consider them.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very carefully worded and referred to a prohibition on charging. The Minister gave us an answer about access. Access and charging are two very different things. He did not go anywhere near charging in his answer.
Mr SPEAKERI realise that the member asked a very precise question. In the circumstances, I will let him repeat it. I ask all members of the House to be quieter so there can be no question of whether it is heard. I want to hear the answer very clearly, as well.
Will he amend the bill to include a specific prohibition on Māori owners charging other New Zealanders for beach use, which he claimed in the House last week already existed; if not, why not?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
Because I believe that the issue is very clear. As I said to the honourable member in response to the previous iteration of this question, I am very happy for him to put his concerns in writing or to make a submission to the select committee on the issue of charging. Everything he says will be carefully considered.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
Does he agree with the Human Rights Commission, which said in 2009 that the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 was a decisive setback in Crown - tangata whenua relationships and in relationships between Māori and other New Zealanders, and how will the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Area Bill improve this situation?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
I believe the bill improves the situation by more appropriately balancing the interests of all New Zealanders. It provides for recognition of uninvestigated customary title and customary rights while guaranteeing public access and recreational use—interests that the ministerial review panel described as the birthright of all New Zealanders.