Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) on behalf of Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Attorney-General: Why didn’t he follow ACT’s advice to repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 and use Parliament’s power to put iwi back to their pre-2004 legal position so Māori could have their day in court?
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by his statement in relation to the Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010: “I am very relaxed about where it ended up. I was involved in the negotiation of the policy right up to the end.”? 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? Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) : I begin by thanking my opposite number, David Parker, for his careful and constructive approach to this issue over the last 18 months—I appreciate it. I do not want to dwell on the history; I want to discuss the bill that is being introduced today by the Government, and that I sincerely hope will provide that just and durable solution to a matter that, I agree with Mr Parker, has vexed the country since the passage of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill recognises and provides for the association of Māori with the common marine and coastal area of New Zealand and ensures that the legitimate interests of all New Zealanders are protected. Questions for Oral Answer [Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill—Definition of “Tikanga”]15/09/2010 DAVID GARRETT (ACT) to the Attorney-General: Does he agree that “tikanga” as it is described—[Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the member. The House will come back to order. That was totally unnecessary. I remind members that when a member has made a personal explanation, that is it as far as this House is concerned. DAVID GARRETT: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does he agree that “tikanga” as it is described in the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill will differ in meaning from iwi to iwi and hapū to hapū? METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Attorney-General: Does he stand by his statement that the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill “treats all New Zealanders including Māori without discrimination”? DAVID GARRETT (ACT) to the Attorney-General: Where in the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill is it guaranteed that access to beaches held under customary title will be free? Limitation Bill — In Committee24/08/2010 Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) : Hearing the dulcet tones of Lynne Pillay takes me back to those very happy days between 2005 and 2008 when we were getting ready for Government and she was the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee. How we enjoyed working collaboratively and positively together on the electoral finance legislation! It was one of the thrills of my life! I regret to say that I was the one who was responsible for pulling the National members out of that select committee visit to Australia, because we do not believe in trips like that, which are primarily vacations. |
