Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:14299] 
4.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Deputy Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his response on the  
Agenda 
 programme of 24 April 2004 when asked if an effect of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill will be to create veto powers effectively allowing Maori to refuse consent unless they are reimbursed thereby creating a charging regime that “If we’re talking about a customary usage right that could be the case”; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes the Government has always said that customary rights are property rights and as such will have legal protection under the law. The power to prevent a development will arise only when the relevant regional council has ruled that such a development would have a severe adverse impact on the ability to exercise the recognised customary right. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How does the Seabed and Foreshore Bill’s legitimising of the koha-for-consent practice sit with this Government’s claims to want to reduce the cost and time of Resource Management Act consents? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I said where a customary right exists and a regional council rules it would have a severe adverse impact for a development to occur then a property right is being adversely affected. The fact that that property right is held by Maori should not mean it is treated any differently from the property rights held by Pakeha. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What test does the Foreshore and Seabed Bill apply to customary rights? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The test is a high one. They must be applied for through either the Maori Land Court in the case of Maori or the High Court in the case of non-Maori. Applicant groups must be able to demonstrate that the use or activity is integral to their culture and has been practised substantially uninterrupted since 1840. It is expected therefore that those rights when they are established will be specific in nature and discrete. 
Dail Jones 
: Is the koha-for-consent process referred to in the supplementary question asked by the deputy leader of the National Party something that came into being as a result of the Resource Management Act passed by National when it was in office? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The so-called koha-for-consent process is certainly a result of the Resource Management Act passed under the previous National Government. But of course similar payments are made to Pakeha; they are just not called koha in that case. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: In developing the foreshore and seabed legislation did the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues give consideration to including a clause to limit the potential for stand-over fees and charges for approving consents to be included; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That issue should arise in the context of a general review of the Resource Management Act. But a party that stands by property rights as being the basis on which the entire civilisation rests as does the ACT party I think will be very careful about interfering with the capacity to be compensated for the loss of the use of those property rights. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: With regard to the interface between the foreshore and seabed legislation and other enactments such as the Resource Management Act in respect of the issue of customary rights is the Deputy Prime Minister satisfied at the level of public understanding of the concept in terms of what is being proposed in the foreshore and seabed legislation; if he is not satisfied what steps will the Government take between now and the implementation of that legislation to ensure that those concepts are widely understood so that there can be no potential confusion or feeling after the event that what people got was not what they expected? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I am certainly not satisfied and I think that the nature of much of the public debate on this issue demonstrates the reason for that lack of satisfaction. But I am sure that if the Government was to engage in a major campaign of education on this matter we would have screaming headlines with various Opposition members’ names attached to them. I am confident that when the Act is in place people will notice remarkably small change in what they are doing now legitimately and that will probably be the best proof of the Act’s operation. 
 Tariana Turia 
: Whom do customary rights flow from and what assurances can the Government give that the foreshore and seabed will not be sold by Governments of the future? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Customary rights flow from the exercise of common law rights which predate therefore the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi; indeed the English version of the treaty states in article 2 the current then understanding of what customary rights were at the transfer of sovereignty. I am sorry but the second part of the question was— 
Hon Member 
: What security? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Parliament is sovereign. The best security therefore is not to elect Governments that believe in selling State assets whatever they are. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That answer is totally unsatisfactory. It clearly did not address the question. To go off and say that the safe way to protect the foreshore and seabed is to elect a Government that would not sell State assets hardly addresses the issue that was raised by the member asking the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought it did. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With the jeering and catcalling from the Government benches I missed the answer. I thought I heard Mr Cullen decrying those who would sell State assets but I might have got him wrong. Can you confirm that he said that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was the impression that I gained too as Speaker when I was listening to the answer. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Did the Government consider any advice in preparing the Foreshore and Seabed Bill that raised the issue that the selling of consents into areas of customary use could lead to future treaty grievance and a liability on the wider New Zealand community? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Actions undertaken by Maori on a willing buyer willing seller basis have never been the grounds for successful treaty grievances. Treaty grievances related often in the past to an unwilling seller basis.