6. TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this
to the Deputy Prime Minister
He aha tōna whakautu ki tētahi tono o nā noa nei mō te Ture Takutai Moana, arā, i takarepa te hātepe mō te whakaae a Te Kooti Matua kia tono te Māori meina kei a rātau te mana i aukatia i raro i tētahi hanganga ture nā te Pirimia i whakahau i te wā e rangirua ana ōna whakaaro?
[What response does he have to the recent claim, regarding the Foreshore and Seabed Act, “that the process that saw a High Court decision to allow Maori to legally test their claims to ownership blocked by legislation promoted by a rattled Prime Minister, was flawed”?]
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) Link to this
My response is that the quotation comes from a Dominion Post editorial that largely attacked Mr Key for not supporting the repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. I take it that the , having for once had a long swipe at the National Party in an editorial, felt the need to have one short one at the Labour Party as well, to even up the balance.
Do you recall your speech of 12 October 2005, the Michael King Memorial Lecture, which referred to the Court of Appeal’s finding that Māori claims to customary rights were a matter still to be tested case by case in the courts, a finding about which you said: “In arriving at this conclusion I am sure the Court of Appeal was correct.”; do you still agree with that statement; if not, why not?
Madam SPEAKERBefore I call the Hon Dr Michael Cullen I remind members that when they address members they must not include the Speaker in questions or answers, please.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Yes, those were carefully considered comments, and indeed the processes for exploring those customary rights are at present under way in a number of instances.
Pita ParaoneKa whakaae te Minita nā te whakaritenga o Te Kooti Pīra i whakaharahara te kore mārama ko wai te rangatira o te Takutai Moana koinā te take i whakaritenga te hanganga ture kia mārama mai te take kia riro ki te Karauna mō ake tonu atu mō ngā iwi katoa o Aotearoa kia wātea taurangi ki te iwi whānui, me koi nā te taumata o ngā tautoko mō aua hanganga ture te kore tautoko o tēnei Whare mō te hanganga ture whakakorenga?
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[Would he agree that the Court of Appeal decision highlighted the lack of clarity surrounding the ownership of the foreshore and seabed, that legislation was required to clarify the issue and secure Crown ownership in perpetuity for all New Zealanders and guaranteed public access, and that the level of public support for that legislation is clearly indicated by the lack of support in the House for the repeal legislation?]
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I think those are fair comments, and it is worth reminding the House that at the time I told the House and the country that the ambition of the Government was to seek to change as little as possible with the Foreshore and Seabed Act. Indeed, if somebody looks at what is happening now in 2007 and at what was happening something over 3 years ago, it would be hard to find what has changed.
Metiria TureiHas the Minister had any reports that the National Party’s disgraceful U-turn on the Foreshore and Seabed Act, where it now agrees with the confiscation of Māori land using blunt, ill-conceived, and prejudiced legislation, is an identical position to the one taken by the Labour Government?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I think I would agree with the odd indefinite article in that question, but probably with practically nothing else in it at all.
What has changed is people’s rights to justice. Which tribes have actually agreed with the Government’s Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, and what reasons did they give for agreeing to it?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The Government is engaged in negotiations with three groups at the present time: Ngāti Porou, Whānau-a-Apanui, and Ngāti Porou ki Hauraki. I expect to be engaged in negotiations with a fourth group before too long. A number of other groups have lodged claims for specific customary rights before the Māori Land Court. As part of those negotiations I am not asking people to give away their assertion of unbroken mana connection with the foreshore and seabed, and I hope we will be able to surprise the member at the outcome of those negotiations, which will ensure there is fairness and justice for all.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question I asked the Minister was not who was in negotiations with the Government, but in fact who had agreed with the Government’s Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 and what reasons they gave for agreeing to it.
I think the Minister did address the question and, as members know, as the Standing Orders are at the moment they cannot require a specific answer to a question. All that Ministers are required to do is to address the question.
Does the Minister agree with the statement in the 2006 Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online that it is difficult to imagine how creating a system to exploit the foreshore and seabed for monetary gain, including increasing mining of the foreshore and seabed activity, which is generally destructive of the environment and of ecosystems, might contribute to a concept of protection; if not, why not?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I will just say that social scientists are not always the best experts on legal or indeed mining matters. The Crown Minerals Act covers the issue of minerals exploration, and in fact freehold title is not the most relevant consideration under that Act. The ability to proceed under the Ngāti Apa decision would not have affected the Crown Minerals Act in that particular regard. The Foreshore and Seabed Act is not designed to allow for so-called monetary exploration. I have to say that the only people I am aware of who pushed that forward as the most important criterion were the group that came to see me after the Government announced its preliminary draft decisions on the matter, who clearly wanted to operate some kind of ticket collection agency in relation to the foreshore and seabed.