Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:14375] 
1. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Deputy Prime Minister 
: Can he confirm that where customary rights recognised under the proposed foreshore and seabed legislation are in an area where a major infrastructure development is planned for example part of the Auckland eastern corridor motorway the development will only be allowed to proceed with the sanction of the customary rights holder? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the 
 Deputy Prime Minister 
: No the local authority has the final decision in such a case. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Do we take it then that the Government no longer backs the previous position which Dr Cullen explained to the House that a customary rights holder who had say an entitlement to take some buckets of sand would as of right have the opportunity to block a major infrastructure development where it was felt that that particular development would impinge upon the customary right? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: No it is not my understanding that Dr Cullen has ever said that. There is a customary right in that instance to take sand if that is the member’s example. But if someone wants to have a development where he or she is taking sand then the normal consent process must be gone through. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The “bucket of sand” issue was not my example; it was Dr Cullen’s example. We have a bit of a problem here in so much as we have been told quite clearly—not only by Dr Cullen but by those who are advising on these matters—that a person who has a customary right does have a right to veto such projects. Margaret Wilson the acting Minister has given us two answers that contradict those previous positions. I know you will say to us that we have a natural remedy in these circumstances but surely it would be better if we had answers that are consistent. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not my job. My job is to judge whether the question is addressed and it was. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Is there a right of veto for a customary rights holder? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: No there is no veto because it is for the local authority to make the final decision once the process set out in the legislation has been gone through. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister confirm that the local authority may well have the customary right reposed in itself as with for example the Auckland regatta which was commenced back in 1840 thereby it being an unbroken use since that time and therefore conferring upon the local authority the right to grant special permits for that day? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: That raises some very interesting possibilities and it may well be perfectly right. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Does the Minister acknowledge that clause 93 of the bill requires the written consent of the holder of a customary right and what does she say to Transpower which this morning at the select committee said that a bucket of sand could effectively hold up the Cook Strait cable or the replacement of it? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I was not at the select committee obviously so I do not know exactly what was said. However I would be surprised if it was put in those terms because there is a process to be gone through. In answer to the first part of the question certainly if the member is referring to clause 93 then that does state that there are restrictions on the granting of resource consents and it sets out the criteria the local authority is to take into account under those circumstances. I would be quite happy to read them out although they are quite long. Essentially the local authority must decide whether there is a significant adverse disadvantage if the resource consent were applied to the holder of the customary right. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is she telling the House it is her belief that there is no right of veto for customary rights holders; if so does she think Michael Cullen was wrong to spend so much time yesterday discussing the possible sale of those customary rights or the setting aside of those customary rights for koha payments? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: My understanding of the question yesterday was that it addressed a slightly different matter but— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No it wasn’t. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Well that is the member’s view. All I am saying is that the way in which the question has been put as to whether the holder of a customary right has a veto in the sense of saying: “No that is it.” then that is not the case. 
Dail Jones 
: Returning to the original question can the Minister confirm that where a major infrastructure development is planned—for example part of the Auckland eastern corridor motorway—the development will be allowed to proceed only provided that matters of national importance under the Resource Management Act such as under section 6(e) “The relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands water sites waahi tapu and other taonga:” as passed by the National Government will have to be considered? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes that is precisely the situation as it stands at the moment. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Is she and her Cabinet colleagues concerned that the provisions of clause 93 could well be abused as we see in the Resource Management Act with the powers conferred there inviting extortion as payment for consent approval? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: No I have no such concerns. Of course any holders of a property right can in fact object under the Resource Management Act if that right is to be effected in a way that is adverse to them and then the process determines whether that is the case. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister received any reports in respect of promises to repeal legislation such as this or any such legislation in respect of the Treaty of Waitangi emanating from the National Party given its present campaign? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask Mr Brownlee to please not interject while questions are being asked. The member holds a responsible position and I just caution him. The question was perfectly in order. The Minister was asked about reports. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: There have been numerous contradictory reports coming from various members of the National Party but I do think it is interesting that the leader of the National Party Don Brash has in fact noted in his speech that the National Party would protect customary rights. That was in his speech to the Marine Industry Association on 22 April. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister received any reports suggesting that there will be a repeal of the legislation so that the foreshore and seabed could then be in private personal or iwi ownership and therefore be capable of being alienated forever to a foreigner—as advocated by the National Party? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Everything except the last part is in order. That is to be ignored. Just the question as stated. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I cannot recall any report in precisely those terms but I can recall that the customary rights of Maori would not be protected and access for those rights to be exercised would not be protected either. Therefore that could be drawn as a consequence that that foreshore and seabed could be privatised. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have encouraged us in the past where a Minister has given answers that are unsatisfactory to take the remedy of going through the privileges process. Given that we have not been at all successful in taking a privilege case so far can you tell the House what sorts of criteria you would require? The Minister today has said there is no veto or effective veto when in fact I am holding the bill in front of me and it could not be more patently clear that that is exactly what would happen. It states that a consent authority must not grant a consent without the written approval given by the holder of the customary right order. The Minister has denied that. The Minister has said that is not the case and that we have it wrong. This is the Minister’s own legislation. I want to know if that is put in front of you whether it would be enough to bring a privileges case against the Minister for misleading the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I have given numerous rulings on ministerial answers. This is debatable material that the member is raising. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek clarification of what is a privileges matter and what is not. Is it a privileges matter where the member does not quote the section accurately? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on the matter. The member has made a point but it is not in order.