Franks Stephen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Franks Stephen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11374] 
7.  
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
 to the  
Deputy Prime Minister 
: Is the Government foreshore and seabed policy proceeding on the basis that either or both Maori ancestral connection or mana moana are enough to establish customary title over the foreshore or seabed; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 Customary title will be able to be issued to recognise mana and ancestral connection—that is its purpose. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why did the Deputy Prime Minister tell me and this House on 18 February that the Court of Appeal “did not suggest the amount of foreshore and seabed with which Maori had ancestral connections was limited to small and discrete areas” when the court did not mention ancestral connection anywhere whatsoever; and does he now admit that a statement of that kind was technically misleading in the Dalziel sense? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That last part is out of order. The rest of it can be answered. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What the Court of Appeal said—and if the member checks his  
Hansard 
 I think he will probably find that I actually said this—was that it was their view but obviously of course not a ruling—that the bundle of customary rights that might add up to something like freehold title would be very difficult to demonstrate and would be relatively rare. Of course that is not the criterion that the Maori Land Court applies to the determination of customary land status. 
Dave Hereora 
: What imperative informs the Government’s approach to the foreshore and seabed issue? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The proposed framework is designed to ensure that no new private title is issued over foreshore and seabed—a possibility raised by the Ngati Apa decision—to protect public access to recognise ancestral connection between tangata whenua and the foreshore and seabed and to recognise and better protect customary rights. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Why has the Government proposed the dual title of public domain and Maori customary title for virtually the entire coastline which then allows Maori to apply to the Maori Land Court for customary rights which might lead to commercial use in light of the fact that the Court of Appeal said that customary title would be difficult to establish? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Court of Appeal did not refer specifically to customary title. It referred as I said to the bundle of customary rights adding up to something like freehold title. That was the primary statement it made in that regard. What of course it was asked to rule upon was whether the Maori Land Court has jurisdiction over the foreshore and seabed in terms of determination ofland status andwhat it ruled in fact occurred. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Government stand by its statement in its submission to the Waitangi Tribunal that “the new form of customary title will enhance the ability of whanau hapu and iwi to ensure their rights are legally recognised” and does the Government remain committed to real and effective participation by iwi hapu and whanau in management and decision making in coastal marine areas? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes but I think what has to be clear is that the level of that participation will depend to a substantial extent on what the current practice is and what the current level of connection is. The level of connection between Ngati Porou for example and the management of the coastal marine area on the East Coast is clearly significantly greater than that of some other iwi in terms of what has actually been happening in recent times. 
Heather Roy 
: When he said last week that he was “not aware of any hapu or iwi that has surrendered its association with foreshore and seabed” and that “customary title already exists in the sense that the connection already exists unbroken since 1840”; if he was not claiming that that justified the Government plan to grant customary titles what point was he making when no court has ever said this? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I was making the point which I am sure the member would have been acutely aware of if she had attended the number of hui that I have on this matter that Maori feel very strongly the continued existence of that mana and ancestral connection tying them to the foreshore and seabed. If members on the other side would simply grasp that essential fact they would stop talking about policies that would try to eliminate that connection. 
Stephen Franks 
: Can I therefore assume from the Minister’s answer that he accepts that no court has ever said that ancestral connection or mana moana justified customary title and the sole reason is because Maori feel that is what they would like? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It would perhaps be helpful if the member actually read clause 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a serious issue and I would ask you to consider how in any way shape or form the Minister’s answer addressed the question raised by Mr Franks. If he thinks the Treaty of Waitangi provides some explanation of this issue then I think he should explain that to this House. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is a debating matter. I would be happy to debate clause 2 with the member outside as I am engaged in an interesting debate with some Maori over the nature of clause 3. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Treaty of Waitangi has been expressly excluded by the Prime Minister as having a bearing on this matter and these titles. The point of order is that the Minister knows that and made no attempt to answer the question. He simply made a completely distracting and diversionary comment. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I thought the Minister addressed the question. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on that matter. 
Rodney Hide 
: This is a new point of order. Is it then going to be the case that on any question where the Government does not want to answer on the seabed or foreshore issue— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Get it right! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is the only warning today. 
Rodney Hide 
 —it will be taken as an acceptable answer to a serious and genuine question of public importance for a Minister just to say “read article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi” and sit down? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. However I think the Minister has indicated that he will give a fuller answer to this and that might solve the difficulty. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What concerns me is that in response to the question just asked you said “No”. That is exactly what you permitted just a few moments before. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes and I am not immune to making mistakes either. Dr Cullen will now say something further. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Your “No” referred to that being a sufficient answer on any occasion not on that particular question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is absolutely right. That is why I said what I said. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My answer was adequate. Before 1840 Maori had connection with all the foreshore and seabed of New Zealand. The Treaty of Waitangi guaranteed certain rights to Maori under article 2. That connection remains unbroken from then to the present day. If members opposite are not prepared to recognise that connection then any solution they come up with however they phrase it will ensure that there will be continued problems in this respect into the future. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Over recent months I have observed a tendency in this House that every time there is an answer to a question that is less than fulsome you are being required to rule whether a Minister addressed the question. My understanding of the Standing Orders is that you are not obliged or required to rule on the quality or content of an answer which could be seen to be at variance with the ruling that a Minister has addressed the question. It essentially becomes a subjective judgment. 
Given the plethora of points of order on this subject every question time I wonder whether it might not be in order for you to look again at the various rulings about what constitutes an answer and the quality of that answer—for which you are not responsible—and what constitutes addressing the question. It seems to me that you are essentially being placed in a no-win situation every time there is an answer of whatever quality or length and someone says: “I don’t think the Minister addressed the question.” You as the impartial arbiter are being forced to make a judgment that I do not think sits with your office. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the responsibilities of the office I have but I think the member’s suggestion is a good one. I will look at that and perhaps bring down a full statement to the House next week.