11. DAVID GARRETT (ACT) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does he stand by his statement regarding proposed changes to the Foreshore and Seabed Act that “I don’t think people will notice a lot of change”?
Hon JOHN KEYWill he commit to prohibiting Māori owners of sections of the coastline from charging New Zealanders for access to the beach and the sea?
I have a couple points. One thing is that we have ensured that access to the foreshore and seabed is absolute and is preserved for New Zealanders. Secondly, the member seems to be asking a question in general about property rights, so for the member’s education maybe I could quote this to him, because I find it to be quite interesting. It comes from Richard Prebble, and it was said in this House. The former ACT leader said: “This party is in favour of property rights, and we accept that there are some parts of New Zealand—not many, but some—where Māori do have property rights on the foreshore. The ACT party stands for that. We do not get upset about that, because they have had them since 1840 and it has not caused any trouble up until now, and we would not have panicked.” That was the principled ACT Party position.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very simple and carefully worded. The first few words—[ Interruption]
Mr SPEAKERI apologise to the honourable member. A point of order has been called, and it will be heard in silence.
The question invited a yes or no answer. I asked whether he would commit to prohibiting, etc. I managed to scribble only the first few words of his answer, which was that he has ensured that access is ensured, etc. That is not an answer to the question of whether the Prime Minister will commit to prohibiting the charging of New Zealanders for access to the beach and the sea.
Members should not be interjecting when the Speaker is considering a point of order. I cannot ask specifically for a yes or no answer from Ministers. But I invite the Prime Minister, having heard the question repeated, to see whether he can be just a little closer to the question. I appreciate that the Prime Minister said access is assured, but the answer did not indicate whether it is assured at no cost.
I cannot for the life of me conceive of any reason why anyone could be charging the average New Zealander to enjoy public access to the beach.
Hon Jim AndertonWhen the Prime Minister said: “I don’t think people will notice a lot of change”, did he mean that nothing would really change; if so, why has he bothered to make the change at all—or did he mean that people will not notice the change until it is too late?