Clark Helen: Financial Review Debate — Procedure In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Clark Helen: Financial Review Debate — Procedure In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11854] 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I would like to comment on the points that members have made across the two votes that have been discussed in the last few minutes. On the question of the Security Intelligence Service and Mr Zaoui’s case let me just tell the Hon Matt Robson that I do not think any member of this Committee could seriously mount a case for saying that Mr Zaoui has not had his legal rights protected in this country. Indeed his legal bills and costs will probably be far greater than for just about anybody who has approached legal aid. He has been through a full Refugee Status Appeals Authority process and he has full representation for the review of the security risk certificate. In other words all the protections of New Zealand law are available to him. 
But the fact remains that a security risk certificate is extant and as long as it is extant the very clear advice the Government has had is that there is no option but to detain him in a penal institution. Whichever way one looks at it the Mangere Refugee Resettlement Centre where some have suggested he be sent is not a penal institution; nor is the option of home detention open under the law as it is written. I look forward when this case is over to a full review of the legal processes around the processing of a case where a security risk certificate is issued because I do not think the time lines have been satisfactory. I think we need to look at where they can be streamlined. No doubt in due course that may result in proposed changes to legislation which a select committee can then have a good look at. 
I come to matters that other members have raised this afternoon. I note the issue Mr Brownlee raised around what papers should have been released by Dr Prebble when I called for all papers to be released. It is a matter of record of course that I was not told that all papers had not been released. As I did not personally check the many hundreds of pages that went out I could not have known that at the time. The select committee that did the financial review acknowledged that Dr Prebble had acknowledged that his judgment could have been better in that case. I leave the matter to rest there and look forward with interest to the select committee report. 
The final issue raised was around foreshore and seabed. It would be desirable for the Opposition to realise that this does raise complex issues. In this country we are used to dealing with grievances in this area under a treaty claims process. This one came out of left field as an aboriginal title issue and it is clear that it has significantly raised expectations in Maoridom. Many in Maoridom have asserted that they own those areas and always have. The strong international legal advice that the Government has and that was in the opinion by Dr Paul McHugh which went to the Waitangi Tribunal was that nowhere where the English common law is recognised have courts awarded exclusive possession of areas like foreshore and seabed to indigenous people. That has not happened. While the courts may find under the common law that there is indeed entitlement to a bundle of rights the strong international precedents suggest that that bundle of rights would fall short of exclusive possession. 
So we have a dichotomy between expectations that are common in quite a lot of areas in Maoridom and what the common law would actually award and what the expectations of most New Zealanders are. I think I speak for most New Zealanders in saying that we see these areas as part of our birthright and we want that strongly asserted. That is why from day one the Government has said that the rights of the New Zealand public to access these areas freely and enjoy them must be upheld. Of course we also want to see that Maori customary rights are upheld and that is why it is appropriate that a new statutory framework is put in place. 
I welcome the fact that the Opposition has chosen to raise these issues today. I have been making the point in recent days that the forum that is provided at enormous expense by the New Zealand taxpayer to debate issues like this with me as Prime Minister or any Prime Minister is right here in this Parliament—not Mr Holmes trying to make himself important. I welcome the fact that the deputy leader of the National Party is one who fronts up and has a go. Good on him. I welcome that. But there are others who prefer to cut and run to television studios and not face this House. All I say is that the taxpayers of New Zealand pay a lot of money for us to debate issues here.