3. SHANE JONES (Labour) Link to this
to the Deputy Prime Minister
What reports, if any, has he received on proposals to change the legislative framework relating to the foreshore and seabed?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) Link to this
I have received a number of reports relating to a proposal to repeal the existing framework and re-vest the foreshore and seabed in the Crown, effectively holding that subject to subsequent legal claims. This proposal is in the bill being promoted by the Māori Party.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
That is a very good question, as Mr Power said. I have seen a report suggesting that the bill needs to be considered by a select committee, a report claiming that this was never said, and, finally, a report saying that the bill will not be supported at all. All three reports are attributed to the leader of the National Party, Mr John Key.
Tariana TuriaTēnā koe, Madam Speaker, tēnā tātou katoa. What does the Minister have to say about the statement from Jock Brookfield, Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of Auckland, that the legislative framework relating to the foreshore and seabed was a gross overreaction to the June 2003 Court of Appeal decision, which “held that Māori customary communal title in areas of sea land (of foreshore and seabed) could exist at common law.”, and that “customary title is a species of legal property and should not be taken by Parliament without full compensation determined by an independent authority.”?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I thought the article by Professor Brookfield was very interesting, but I think it was unfair in one key and important respect: any group has the right to go to the High Court, which has the inherent jurisdiction in customary law matters in any case, for a declaration that, but for the passage of the Act, territorial customary rights existed—that is, in language he uses, customary title. If that declaration is made by the High Court, the Crown must enter into negotiations with the claimants for redress, and any agreed redress must be taken back to the court for confirmation. Alternatively, of course, the Crown can enter into direct negotiations with groups that it believes have such territorial customary rights and then proceed back to the court for the registration of an agreement. That is happening with Ngāti Porou, Whānau-a-Apanui, and Ngāti Porou ki Hauraki, and excellent progress is being made in those discussions. I think the member may be surprised at what comes out of those discussions. I think New Zealand as a whole will be pleased to see the kind of balance that, in fact, the Foreshore and Seabed Act is capable of producing.