1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Has she received any recent reports regarding the development of policy around the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) Link to this
Yes. Three iwi are currently in negotiations with the Crown pursuant to the Act.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Has the Prime Minister seen the leaked discussion document “National’s Relationship with Māori” where it reads, in relation to the Foreshore and Seabed Act, the following: “We need to consider public opinion and decide on our position.”; and does the Government intend to follow this flip-flop or this idea of putting one’s hand into the wind to see which way the public feeling might prevail?
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That behaviour is simply intolerable.
Madam SPEAKERYes, I agree with the member. It is known that in fact people do not make any comment when a member is asking a question.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Thank you. Has the Prime Minister seen the leaked discussion document entitled “National’s Relationship with Māori”, where it reads, in relation to the Foreshore and Seabed Act, and I quote from it: “We need to consider public opinion and decide on our position.”, and does the Government intend to follow this flip-flop or this policy prescription where one puts one’s finger into the air and sees what the public thinks?
Gerry BrownleeI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like you to consider whether the Prime Minister, or any Minister for that matter, is able to give an opinion on a document that does not belong to them and is being grossly misrepresented by the Government’s new “poodle protector”, the Hon Winston Peters. I am quite certain that the Prime Minister will have a lot to say. Prime Ministers under pressure normally look for any excuse to take the spotlight off them. The fact is that her Government has been engaged in corrupt practice, and some comment about a leaked document, which is of no concern to us, adds nothing today, and I think you need to consider whether the Prime Minister should be allowed to get on her feet and gratuitously attempt to protect herself.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
If you ruled that people could not ask questions about a document that they had not originated, which they have got from somebody else, that would lead to 12 patsies a day and no questions from anybody other than Labour or Progressive members.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
First of all, I did not seek an opinion. I asked whether the Government intended to follow such a policy prescription. The second thing is that during the time the member spoke, in his inimitable, unqualified fashion he started using all sorts of epithets that had no relation whatsoever to the point of order. I know he is struggling to keep his job, but this is not the way he should do it.
The member is right. Mr Brownlee would have been right if an opinion only had been sought, but a Government intention was sought; therefore the question is in order. I would also just like to remind members that points of order are not an opportunity to make speeches. It does help the Speaker if the essence of the point of order is, in fact, the subject of that point of order.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have two things. First, I withdraw my comments referring to Mr Peters as being the Government poodle and security watchdog. Secondly, I seek leave of the House to table the so-called leaked document in order that there can be no misrepresentation of its content at all.
John CarterI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. During the course of the member Winston Peters asking his question, there were one or two interjections from the side on which you very firmly ruled and reminded the House that it does not tolerate interjections during questions. I must say that the same rule also applies during points of order, and at the time that Gerry Brownlee was taking his points of order there were a good number of interjections from across that side of the House. I just ask that we be consistent in applying the rules. If it is pertinent for this side to sit and listen to questions that are jokes, and not be able to object, then similarly the same rule should apply during points of order for the other side.
I thank the member. I assume he is not suggesting that the Chair is partial on this matter, or the Speaker is partial is on these matters. Of course the rule applies to everyone, and everyone is on their last warning.
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I have seen this extraordinary document and I have compared it with the National Party’s policy, which says: “Return the seabed and foreshore to Crown ownership.” I am therefore absolutely staggered that the National Party is open to the possibility of repealing the law that puts the foreshore and seabed beyond doubt in Crown ownership and that would leave us open to private exclusive title being issued over those very areas. That is my definition of a flip-flop.
If the coastline of New Zealand is so protected, as she claims, why is her Government in negotiation with Ngāti Porou Te Whānau-a-Apanui, Ngāti Porou ki Hauraki, and Ngāti Porou themselves when we all know that the only reason for that negotiation is that those tribes claim a proprietary interest in that 600 kilometres of coastline?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
The legislation, which the National Party opposed, always gave the ability for Māori to have their customary territorial rights recognised. The National Party said that that was a terrible thing and there should be only Crown ownership. But now, for political reasons, National members want to flip-flop and open up the possibility for private, exclusive freehold title to be issued. That is a flip-flop again.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister is misleading the House and taking a position that can be described only as dishonest in suggesting that we are looking for private ownership of the foreshore and seabed. It is her Government that is about to give away 600 kilometres of coastline because a bunch of its friends have stuck their hands up and demanded it. This is a matter that perhaps should have been dealt with in different ways. It is bad legislation and I do not think it should be compounded in the public’s view by the Prime Minister being able to tell lies to the House.
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, firstly I ask that those comments be withdrawn.
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Secondly, I put it to you, Madam Speaker, that there is no misrepresentation when we have the National Party prepared to consider supporting outright repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act, knowing that that would leave us with the situation we had before the Act was passed where it was possible for Māori to move through to fee simple title. Those are the facts.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Has the Prime Minister seen a leaked discussion document titled “National’s Relationship with Māori”, where it reads: “We have made it clear that we want to help New Zealanders on the basis of need not race, but any look at some of those statistics will show that the need does lie substantially with Māori.”; and does the Government intend to follow National’s key election policy plank, which it knew to be completely untrue and that its credibility was on the line?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
From January 2004 the National Party, through its leader, set out to convey an utterly false picture of New Zealand whereby Māori were somehow privileged. Mr Brownlee’s memo makes it clear that he recognises that actually the neediest people in New Zealand are to be found in Māoridom, and that needs something done about it.
Metiria TureiWhen the Prime Minister’s Government used the Foreshore and Seabed Act to confiscate the seabed, apparently for the benefit of New Zealanders, were New Zealanders told that the seabed was going to be leased to international seabed mining companies, with prospecting licences issued covering a third of New Zealand’s coastline, threatening our endangered dolphins and marine ecosystems, and with no consultation with affected coastal New Zealand communities?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I am told that it involves no change to mining legislation whatsoever. What the Act does is make clear the understanding that had been around for rather more than a century that these areas were in Crown ownership.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
Has she received a report from Te Rūnanga a Iwi o Ngāti Tama-Te-Rā that strongly objects to what the chairman described as “the backdoor deals” being negotiated with Ngāti Porou ki Hauraki through the former Labour Associate Minister of Māori Affairs, John Tamihere, and the whānau of the current Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Parekura Horomia, in relation to Ngāti Tama-Te-Rā’s interests in Tokatea and Mataora, and will she follow the advice of Ngāti Tama-Te-Ra that the Minister of Māori Affairs and the Attorney-General step aside from the process; if not, why not?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I have not seen such a report but I would have been very surprised at any serious allegation that people who were seeking to exercise their rights under a statute are in some way acting in an underhand way. In fact, to simply describe the chair of the rūnanga Ngāti Porou, Apirana Māhuika, as somehow compromised because he might be vaguely related to a member of Parliament I think is simply ridiculous.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
I seek leave to table a letter from Mr D Baker, the chairman of Te Rūnanga a Iwi o Ngāti Tama-Te-Rā to the Hon Parekura Horomia, dated 26 January 2006.