Hon Christopher Finlayson

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) to the Attorney-General: Does he agree with the reported statement of the Hon Phil Goff that “any outcome needs to maintain public access to beaches and protect the customary title or rights of iwi to the seabed and foreshore” and that “this is already the situation”; if not, why not?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) : I certainly agree that any outcome needs to protect the customary title or rights of iwi. However, rather than protecting customary title, the current Act extinguished it, but, I guess, only the Labour Party would equate extinguishing basic property rights with protecting them. Perhaps this helps to explain why Labour members thought that the way to protect free speech in New Zealand was to restrict the rights of New Zealanders for fully one-third of their adult life under the Electoral Finance Act.

Rahui Katene: Does the Government’s consultation document on the foreshore and seabed address the concerns raised by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination that the 2004 Act contained discriminatory aspects against Māori; in particular, its failure to provide a guaranteed right of redress?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: In addition to the criticisms of the United Nations the review panel did, indeed, find that the current Act disproportionately discriminated against Māori—[Interruption]; well, I am simply referring to what the report said—because it extinguished Māori property rights in the form of customary title, while leaving non-Māori property rights unaffected, and it removed the fundamental right of folk to go to court. The Government’s preferred approach set out in the consultation document will restore that fundamental right of New Zealanders to have access to the courts.

Rahui Katene: Why is public domain takiwā iwi whānui the Government’s preferred option, and is it responsive to tikanga Māori such as kaitiakitanga?

Hon Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It appeared that the microphone did not kick in for the first 10 or 11 words—I certainly did not hear them—and I wonder whether we could have the question again. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: If members are quite finished, there was a point of order. It was a totally fair point of order. I could not hear, either. If the honourable member Rahui Katene would not mind repeating her question, please.

Rahui Katene: Why is public domain takiwā iwi whānui the Government’s preferred option, and is it responsive to tikanga Māori such as kaitiakitanga?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I believe it is. The concept of ownership has proved to be a polarising issue, and I believe that the public domain concept provides a very good basis on the way forward and it certainly provides a good framework within which iwi and hapū can access the courts to seek to prove customary title.

Hon David Parker: Does the Minister agree with Hone Harawira that the existing Foreshore and Seabed Act essentially stole freehold title to the whole of the foreshore and seabed around New Zealand from Māoridom?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I think that as we move forward it is important to avoid explosive terms like “steal” or “appropriate”. I am keen to seek to achieve a reconciliation of interests—[Interruption]—and, in answer to the member for Rongotai, we could all look back to the past and throw sticks at one another, but I am seeking to rise above this and do the right thing for the country.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise a point of order about the nature of the answer from two perspectives. First, the quote from my colleague is a quote, I understand, from just yesterday, so it is not looking back but is a recent matter of public importance for us to consider.

Hon Member: Yesterday is the past.

Hon Darren Hughes: Well, he said the ancient past.

Mr SPEAKER: There should not be interjection while a point of order is being taken.

Hon Darren Hughes: The second point is that the substance of the Minister’s answer was that he did not want to go down the path of criticism and arrow slinging, and so on and so forth, but in his own prepared answers to the Māori Party’s supposed supplementary questions he accused the Labour Party of shutting down freedom of speech and all sorts of things. I do not feel that my colleague’s question was answered.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the member, and I agree with him absolutely that the disorder that has arisen during this question stems from the Minister’s first answer, which was not particularly helpful. Having said that, I think the member the Hon David Parker asked whether the Minister agreed with a statement. We all know that when we seek opinions we cannot expect to receive absolutely precise answers around them. From the Minister’s answer it would appear that he does not totally agree, because he suggested that that sort of language was not helpful. So I think the member did get his question answered.

Hon David Parker: Does the Minister agree with comments made by John Armstrong in the New Zealand Herald this morning that “Right now, the Maori Party carries the responsibility of making optimum use of a benign political climate to strike a deal both for its own sake and the country’s.”?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: With apologies to the New Zealand Herald, I have to confess that I have not read the article. I am the first to admit that it is a different political environment from what it was 7 years ago. I think there is a very good opportunity to work through this issue. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the Minister--

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Listen to Mr Robertson behaving like an oaf.

Mr SPEAKER: I was just about to assist the Minister, and he has just cut the ground from under my feet. On this occasion the Minister was trying to give a helpful answer, there was a lot of interjection, and it was very unhelpful. But with that last comment the Minister has left me no option but to proceed to the next question, if there are no more supplementary questions.