Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Attorney-General: Is it the Government’s intention to notify local residents that the Minister responsible is considering an application to grant iwi customary marine title over the foreshore and seabed of their local beach; if so, will the procedure for that notification be set out in the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill?
Questions for Oral Answer [Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill—Taipā Point Land Occupation]17/11/2010 Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Attorney-General: Does he stand by his statements that Ngāti Kahu protesters at Taipā Bay can “go to hell” and “I think they’re stupid”, and can he assure New Zealanders that such protests are not a foretaste of things to come under his Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill? Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Attorney-General: Does he stand by his answer of “yes” to my question yesterday that under the proposed Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill “…when we have Treaty settlements that shift property and titles to iwi groups, those settlements are brought before the House and select committees for public scrutiny and ratification by Parliament, yet when it comes to the foreshore and seabed a Minister, by private treaty in his or her office, can sign the deal, with no public scrutiny and no oversight by Parliament”; if so, what protection will there be against allegations of political patronage and corruption? Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Attorney-General: Is it Government policy to exempt the holders of customary marine title from the application of the Resource Management Act 1991 and provide the holders with the sole right to give, or deny, a Resource Management Act permission right with no right of appeal or objection against the decision, as described in Bell Gully’s newsletter update October 2010 on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill? HILARY CALVERT (ACT) to the Attorney-General: Will his amendment to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill to ensure that public access to the foreshore and seabed is free, allow for mum, dad and the children to go to the beach for a picnic, a paddle, and to build a sandcastle below the line of mean high water springs so that they won’t be charged for the privilege; if not, why not? Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) to the Attorney-General: Does he agree with ACT leader Rodney Hide’s statement on Radio New Zealand this morning in relation to ACT’s amendment to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill to explicitly prohibit Māori with customary title from charging fees for access to coastal areas: “I have an e-mail here from the Attorney-General’s office saying that they would support such a provision in the bill—that is to say I’ve got that in writing”? HILARY CALVERT (ACT) to the Attorney-General: Will he support my proposed amendment to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill to include a specific prohibition on customary title holders charging for public access to New Zealand beaches such as is provided for in the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004; if not, why not? RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) to the Attorney-General: What requirements must the Crown meet in relation to the burden of proof in the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill, and how different is this to former legislation in respect of how the full burden of proof falls on hapū and iwi? Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Attorney-General: When he answered yesterday that “hopefully” the new foreshore and seabed bill “will settle the protracted controversy around the issues of the foreshore and seabed”, was he aware that the Government’s confidence and supply partner the Hon Pita Sharples told TV3 that he was “not entirely happy” with the new bill? Questions for Oral Answer [Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill—Proof of Customary Interest]15/09/2010 TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to the Attorney-General: What is the burden of proof under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill in relation to applications for customary interests, and what type of evidence would the Crown be required to produce to prove that a customary interest had been extinguished? |
