Quinn Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Quinn Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 30 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:10203. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
6. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: What are the key aspects of the Government’s preferred approach in the foreshore and seabed consultation document released yesterday? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 The key aspects are: first to repeal the 2004 Act and replace it with new legislation; second to remove Crown ownership of the public foreshore and seabed; third to create a public domain that recognises and balances the interests of all New Zealanders; fourth to restore any uninvestigated customary title that was extinguished by the 2004 Act; fifth to restore the fundamental human right to seek access to justice through the courts; and sixth to provide for public access and the continued operation of existing use rights. 
Paul Quinn 
: What are the key differences between the current Act and the Government’s preferred approach? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: There are a number. First it provides for the recognition of customary title which the current Act extinguished; second it removes Crown ownership of the public foreshore and seabed and places it in a public domain; and third it restores the fundamental right of New Zealanders to seek access to the courts in this regard. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does the Minister agree that designating the foreshore and seabed as public domain which United Future has advocated since 2004 is the best way to ensure that the traditional rights and interests of all New Zealanders can be protected? Is this the reason why he is now promoting the creation of a public domain as the Government’s preferred option? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Yes I do. I acknowledge that United Future has been advocating this position since 2004 and with respect I think it is right. I commend the member and his party for the contribution that they have made to this debate. 
Paul Quinn 
: Under the Government’s preferred approach what rights and practices would be protected? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: There are a number. First public access to the foreshore and seabed would be provided for; second any part of the foreshore and seabed that is privately owned would be unaffected and there are about 12500 titles around the coastline that fall into that category; third existing fishing and navigation rights would remain unchanged; and fourth all existing use rights such as costal permits would remain unchanged until the end of their term. I will add in this respect that most New Zealanders will not notice any dramatic change but that those people who had their rights taken away will. 
Hon David Parker 
: Are the rights that Maori hapu or iwi may obtain under customary title claims under the Government’s preferred approach similar to those achieved by Ngati Porou in their agreement with the previous Labour Government? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: They could be. I have studied very closely the Ngati Porou agreement which some on the member’s side of the House have characterised as being an agreement under the Foreshore and Seabed Act. In fact those rights are not the same; they go beyond those provided for in the Act. In analysing the awards and the tests I have endeavoured to look at what is currently there under the 2004 Act and under the Ngati Porou agreement then to take that to customary title. In this respect it is different: customary title will be a species of property right. It will not be able to be sold public access will be retained and there will also be a right to develop.