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 CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) : The bill as already drafted protects recreational activities in or on the common marine and coastal area. I refer the honourable member to clause 27(1)(c). Moreover, clause 7 provides that the marine and coastal area encompasses the area from the line of the mean high water springs to the outer limits of the territorial sea. Although building sandcastles on the wet part of the beach is generally inadvisable, I would advise the member not to build sandcastles towards the outer limits of the territorial sea.
Hilary Calvert: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister did not answer the question at all. You asked us to make questions simple. The question was capable of a yes or a no answer. The Attorney-General has referred to something quite other than the amendment I asked about.
Mr SPEAKER: I think—[Interruption] When the Speaker is on his feet there will be silence. We cannot be absolutely precise as to how Ministers will answer questions, and I do not believe that the Minister tried to dodge the question. He argued in answering it that the existing clauses of the bill guarantee what the member’s question was asking about, even without the suggested amendment that is being talked about. I believe that that is a reasonable answer to the question. I think it would be pretty unreasonable for the Speaker to rule otherwise. The member’s party has another supplementary question with which to test the Minister’s answer further.
Hon John Boscawen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am reluctant to challenge your ruling, but the Attorney-General has said that he is making an amendment to this bill. The Prime Minister has further said that that amendment can be made very simply by inserting the word “free”. My colleague is asking the Attorney-General to confirm that when those amendments are made they will provide for mum, dad, and the children to be able to go to the beach and have a paddle. We do not think it is unreasonable for the Attorney-General to confirm that that is the intention of making that amendment.
Mr SPEAKER: I think the members of the ACT Party have a further supplementary question with which to test the Minister’s answer. If one wants to be pedantic, the Minister could even answer that he does not yet have an amendment and just sit down. I do not know whether he has an amendment, but if one has not been tabled, the Minister can simply say that he does not have one and sit down. But the Minister tried, I think, in answering the question, to assure the questioner that what the question was seeking an assurance on was in fact already assured by certain clauses in the bill that the Minister quoted. The member has a supplementary question with which to test that further.
Hilary Calvert: Will his amendment encompass all activities of surf life-saving clubs, including training days and fund-raising activities, and will it cover the Kiwi Kids Weet-Bix Tryathlon; if not, why not?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: There is actually no amendment drafted, but I say this to the honourable member: the bill as already drafted makes it clear that those activities are covered.
Hilary Calvert: Will his amendment to ensure that public access is free encompass wāhi tapu areas provided for in clause 77; if not, why not?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No; wāhi tapu areas are covered by the bill in appropriate circumstances. There will be wāhi tapu areas for the very good reason that there is justification for them in the particular circumstances in that area.
Hon Shane Jones: Can the Minister advise the House whether an ACT MP wanting to have a picnic in a wāhi tapu would be out to lunch?
Mr SPEAKER: I do not think I can allow that question because it--
Hon Members: Oh!
Mr SPEAKER: Far be it for me to deprive the House, but it would not be reasonable if I were to allow the question, because the Minister in answering it may make unfair comments about a third party—not the questioner’s party—and that would be unreasonable. I think the question was too far wide of order and too far wide of the Standing Orders.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is not the problem with that that you are prejudging the Attorney-General’s response?
Mr SPEAKER: No, no; I am ruling out the question.
Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There was an element of seriousness in the question. We have had to tolerate a diatribe--
Mr SPEAKER: No, no. That is not acceptable—not acceptable, at all.
Te Ururoa Flavell: Why is the Minister considering an amendment from the ACT Party when public submissions on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill are yet to close, and how appropriate is it for the Government to make decisions on proposed amendments while a bill is still before a select committee?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Actually, I am considering promoting an amendment of my own to clause 27; it is not an ACT amendment. But I hear what the honourable member is saying. This is a complex bill, it is before the select committee, and any amendments should ideally be considered after the select committee has heard submissions.
Te Ururoa Flavell: Does he consider that in suggesting that the current bill’s drafting does not allow free access for mums, dads, and kids to build sandcastles on the foreshore, the ACT member herself is building a sandcastle on a foundation of quicksand, and may disappear at the next election?
Mr SPEAKER: Having ruled out a question like that from the Labour Party, I will rule out that question, too.
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I seek leave to table a document I procured from www.ehow.com, entitled “How to build a sandcastle”.
Mr SPEAKER: We will not do that.
Hilary Calvert: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister did not answer the question at all. You asked us to make questions simple. The question was capable of a yes or a no answer. The Attorney-General has referred to something quite other than the amendment I asked about.
Mr SPEAKER: I think—[Interruption] When the Speaker is on his feet there will be silence. We cannot be absolutely precise as to how Ministers will answer questions, and I do not believe that the Minister tried to dodge the question. He argued in answering it that the existing clauses of the bill guarantee what the member’s question was asking about, even without the suggested amendment that is being talked about. I believe that that is a reasonable answer to the question. I think it would be pretty unreasonable for the Speaker to rule otherwise. The member’s party has another supplementary question with which to test the Minister’s answer further.
Hon John Boscawen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am reluctant to challenge your ruling, but the Attorney-General has said that he is making an amendment to this bill. The Prime Minister has further said that that amendment can be made very simply by inserting the word “free”. My colleague is asking the Attorney-General to confirm that when those amendments are made they will provide for mum, dad, and the children to be able to go to the beach and have a paddle. We do not think it is unreasonable for the Attorney-General to confirm that that is the intention of making that amendment.
Mr SPEAKER: I think the members of the ACT Party have a further supplementary question with which to test the Minister’s answer. If one wants to be pedantic, the Minister could even answer that he does not yet have an amendment and just sit down. I do not know whether he has an amendment, but if one has not been tabled, the Minister can simply say that he does not have one and sit down. But the Minister tried, I think, in answering the question, to assure the questioner that what the question was seeking an assurance on was in fact already assured by certain clauses in the bill that the Minister quoted. The member has a supplementary question with which to test that further.
Hilary Calvert: Will his amendment encompass all activities of surf life-saving clubs, including training days and fund-raising activities, and will it cover the Kiwi Kids Weet-Bix Tryathlon; if not, why not?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: There is actually no amendment drafted, but I say this to the honourable member: the bill as already drafted makes it clear that those activities are covered.
Hilary Calvert: Will his amendment to ensure that public access is free encompass wāhi tapu areas provided for in clause 77; if not, why not?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No; wāhi tapu areas are covered by the bill in appropriate circumstances. There will be wāhi tapu areas for the very good reason that there is justification for them in the particular circumstances in that area.
Hon Shane Jones: Can the Minister advise the House whether an ACT MP wanting to have a picnic in a wāhi tapu would be out to lunch?
Mr SPEAKER: I do not think I can allow that question because it--
Hon Members: Oh!
Mr SPEAKER: Far be it for me to deprive the House, but it would not be reasonable if I were to allow the question, because the Minister in answering it may make unfair comments about a third party—not the questioner’s party—and that would be unreasonable. I think the question was too far wide of order and too far wide of the Standing Orders.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is not the problem with that that you are prejudging the Attorney-General’s response?
Mr SPEAKER: No, no; I am ruling out the question.
Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There was an element of seriousness in the question. We have had to tolerate a diatribe--
Mr SPEAKER: No, no. That is not acceptable—not acceptable, at all.
Te Ururoa Flavell: Why is the Minister considering an amendment from the ACT Party when public submissions on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill are yet to close, and how appropriate is it for the Government to make decisions on proposed amendments while a bill is still before a select committee?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Actually, I am considering promoting an amendment of my own to clause 27; it is not an ACT amendment. But I hear what the honourable member is saying. This is a complex bill, it is before the select committee, and any amendments should ideally be considered after the select committee has heard submissions.
Te Ururoa Flavell: Does he consider that in suggesting that the current bill’s drafting does not allow free access for mums, dads, and kids to build sandcastles on the foreshore, the ACT member herself is building a sandcastle on a foundation of quicksand, and may disappear at the next election?
Mr SPEAKER: Having ruled out a question like that from the Labour Party, I will rule out that question, too.
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I seek leave to table a document I procured from www.ehow.com, entitled “How to build a sandcastle”.
Mr SPEAKER: We will not do that.
