Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:12519] 
4.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does her statement yesterday that the Crown will be vested with “full legal and beneficial ownership” of the foreshore and seabed also guarantee that all New Zealanders will be treated equally in relation to the Government’s proposed legislation? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The legislation guarantees that all New Zealanders will have access to the seabed and foreshore and that anyone who considers that he or she is eligible may apply to have customary rights recognised and protected. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is something going on in the gallery that is not permitted. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are not commenting on that. I thank the Assistant Speaker for advising me but they will be removed. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is it correct that under the Government’s bill a customary right holder will have an effective power of veto over resource consent applications and can she explain to the House how such a provision can do anything other than underpin a making of financial demands which most New Zealanders would call blackmail and extortion? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As has been stated many times in the House the customary right based on continuity of use is in effect a property right; therefore if a proposed development has a significant adverse effect on the specified activity then clearly the development could not proceed without approval. 
Dail Jones 
: Is it the Government’s intention to ensure that when any New Zealander is successful in obtaining a favourable decision before a court this Government will not intervene in the decision other than to ensure that the successful New Zealander is entitled to the fruits of his or her successful case as for example in the Ngati Apa case which confirmed a customary right relating to use which has been transposed into the Foreshore and Seabed Bill with clear procedures? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I understand that the answer in short is yes. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Will the Prime Minister now take steps to ensure that New Zealanders can access those beaches and foreshores that are currently locked in by private landowners in order to ensure equal treatment? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There has been another Government consultation going on about access rights to certain areas in general. With specific reference to the riparian rights which appear to stem mainly from some earlier 19th century titles I understand that it has been the policy of the Crown for many years to endeavour to claw back in that area whenever there is an issue of subdivision. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why is she promoting a new ancestral right a right previously unknown to our law or to English law and available only to Maori which provides for local government decision-making influence and power to be inherited and should we not condemn a racial inheritance of political power as feudal and racist? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The special reference to Maori with regard to local government planning processes goes back to the 1991 Resource Management Act which mentions as a matter of national importance the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands water sites wahi tapu and other taonga. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm in respect of the first supplementary question from Dr Brash that the issue he refers to is one of status and status alone that there is no veto right as we have been hearing on the radio this morning and that such information is blatantly misleading? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I can absolutely confirm that there is no veto right associated with ancestral connection. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: How do the Prime Minister’s comments to National Radio this morning that she still favours the concept of public domain as the way of ensuring all New Zealanders have access to the foreshore and seabed sit alongside the agreement she entered into yesterday? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The bill as it stands absolutely ensures that every Kiwi is able to enjoy those areas. My stated preference for quite a long time has been for there to be some concept of public domain or the people of New Zealand incorporated. Unfortunately it was not possible to get a parliamentary majority for that. 
Dr Don Brash 
: How does the bill treat all New Zealanders equally when it clearly provides behind a facade of public ownership for substantial Maori control of the management of the seabed and foreshore; or is it the case that under her Government some New Zealanders are more equal than others? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There has been provision in New Zealand law since the 1990s for devolved decision-making and involvement in decision making. That goes back to the 1991 Resource Management Act—an Act passed by the National Government—which refers in section 33 to tangata whenua being able to become decision makers in their own right and to take direct control of certain areas. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Why is the Government now saying that existing Resource Management Act coastal permits will extinguish customary rights forever when as recently as December the proposal was simply to suspend the customary right until the coastal permit expired? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That is getting into a level of detail I am not prepared to answer here. If the member puts down a specific question I will come back with an answer. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is it correct that the effect of the Government’s proposed legislation will be that a New Zealander who does not hold a customary right will have to undergo the lengthy process of applying for a resource consent to undertake the same activity that a person who holds a customary right could carry out as of right? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Customary rights by definition are those rights that have had continuity of use since 1840. If they do not have a resource consent applying to them now why would they tomorrow? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act was passed by National in 1993 that it settled the Sealord’s deal in October 1992 and that in 1991 it passed the Resource Management Act all of which go to the core of this issue; and with that in mind how does she reconcile a statement such as this: “I am comfortable with the Fishing Act.” made on Radio Pacific this morning by a very confused leader of the National Party? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is quite clear to me that both the 1991 resource management legislation and the fisheries legislation to which the member refers provide for devolution of decision making and for extensive co-management—principles that the National Party was happy to subscribe to in the past. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that under the legislation passed in 1992 and 1996 there exist customary fishing rights that are rights held only by those who are customary fishers and not held by other New Zealanders? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes I can confirm that the National Government passed such legislation. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the  
Oxford Dictionary 
 which demonstrates what the word “hypocrisy” is about so that the public might understand what we are talking about. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I seek leave that the member annotates the page he is referring to? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Prime Minister cannot do that. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I inquire whether the document tabled is the concise version the standard version the long version or the very long version of the  
Oxford Dictionary 
? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member cannot do that. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: How can the Government say the bill guarantees that all New Zealanders will be treated equally when to claim a customary right under the bill one would have to show continuous occupation since 1840 and when under British common law and the law of adverse possession one has to occupy land for only 12 years in order to be able to have squatter’s rights; why is the Government going back 164 years except for the very good reason that that means that virtually no Pakeha will be able to make a claim; and how can this Government and the Rt Hon Winston Peters possibly claim that this bill is not racist when in fact only Maori will be able to make a claim? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were three questions there. The right honourable Prime Minister can comment on two if she wishes. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The date of 1840 is when sovereignty was transferred from indigenous people to the British Crown and the power from that time to legislate and regulate.