Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6625] 
1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Did she say “Ownership of the foreshore and seabed has long been considered to lie with the Crown”; if so does that remain her position today? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes and yes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If that is the case what do the Prime Minister and her erstwhile deputy intend to discuss with the Maori members of the Labour Party caucus? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What we intend to discuss with them and with others outside this Parliament is how to reconcile the traditional rights of all New Zealanders to access to the foreshore and seabed with the customary rights of Maori. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that legislation that confirms that the Crown owns the seabed and the foreshore will have the effect of extinguishing customary title—exactly the customary title that Maori members believe is the source of their customary rights? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Can the Prime Minister explain to the House why her Government is continuing to negotiate the transfer of ownership of the shore and bed of 14 Rotorua lakes when the public access issues there are a direct parallel to the foreshore and seabed issues? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is a specific historical claim and is very similar to the agreement arrived at by the previous Government in respect of Lake Taupo. 
Metiria Turei 
: Given the serious concerns raised by Maori over the foreshore issue and given the statement of opposition made by Labour’s own Maori caucus will the Prime Minister now commit to ensuring that the Government will now act honourably engage with Maori in a good-faith dialogue and as a sincere gesture of reconciliation withdraw its threat to use a legislative hammer against Maori customary title? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government has acted honourably throughout and will enter into discussions with a range of people including the Maori caucus which is the only fully mandated body in New Zealand with full electoral representation. That will be designed to achieve an outcome whereby the traditional rights of all New Zealanders including Maori are reconciled with Maori customary rights. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with the assertion of her colleague the Associate Minister of Maori Affairs that the outcome to be sought here ought to be one where mum dad and the kids can continue to go to the beach to have a barbecue in the way that they do today and if she does agree with that assertion will she give the House an assurance that any legislative changes will enshrine that right? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes though I doubt whether that exact wording is likely to be used in the statute. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If the right lies with the Crown and therefore the Maori right is extinguished by that statement what is there to reconcile other than that her Maori members will play lapdog on this issue? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As that member is Mr Bolger’s ex-poodle I can assure him that none of the Maori members— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member will— 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I withdraw and apologise. If there was any suggestion— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. He should withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He said precisely that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No he did not. He should withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He did. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No he did not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I heard him. Please be seated. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member had better not challenge my word in any way. I heard him. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: You might have heard him but I did not nor did anybody down here and they have just told me so. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I heard the member withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If any of my Maori colleagues are to be seen as lapdogs can I say they certainly have some bite! Might I say that the Government’s position remains what it is—that Maori customary rights are not to be extinguished. They are to be recognised and to be reconciled with the traditional rights of New Zealanders which previously have been expressed in terms of the assumption of a Crown title. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: How can the Prime Minister claim that it is a win-win situation when for generations New Zealanders in this country have had free access to our coastline foreshore and seabed and there is now a proposal to have special privileged restricted use by one class of New Zealanders based on the arrival date of their forebears? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member is not aware that general freehold title can co-exist with other rights over land. I suspect he has never had even an easement over his own property. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the answer we have been given in this House today mean that there will be a different law for Maori as opposed to the rest of New Zealand on the issue of the foreshore and seabed—yes or no? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My understanding is that Maori customary rights could pertain only to Maori. However I will seek any reports that might be available from the member that would suggest otherwise. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not think we have to put up with smart alec answers like that. The reality is the riparian right is not restricted to Maori and many people know that—though he does not. I am asking whether there will be a different law and I do not need a smart alec answer of that type. He has not found a new way to answer the question. And he got it wrong in the law as well. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister addressed the question. 
Hon Bill English 
: As the Minister has referred in each answer to Maori customary rights in respect of the seabed and the foreshore can he tell us what those customary rights are? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Obviously not. The purpose of any law—[ 
Interruption 
] Well what the Court of Appeal ruled if the member cares to think about it is that Maori could apply to have those customary rights recognised through the Maori Land Court. It is up to individual iwi and hapu to make a claim as to what those rights are in their case. It was a silly question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The last comment is to be withdrawn. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I withdraw. I shall simply think that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no no. Now the member will withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister’s answer mean that this Government thinks that the Court of Appeal got the decision wrong; if that is not the case what does it intend to legislate when the issue is related to title? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What the Government intends to legislate is about how we reconcile the traditional rights of all New Zealanders—expressed very well by Mr Peter Dunne—with the fact of Maori customary rights. I am fascinated that parties opposite are arguing that property right should be extinguished by legislation—particularly the party which most stands by property rights. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I seek leave to table a website posting of the Prime Minister’s dated 22 June 2003 stating that ownership of the foreshore and seabed has long been considered to lie with the Crown. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table an article dated 24 June in which the Attorney-General says that the Crown is going to clarify that in fact the seabed and foreshore are owned by all New Zealanders in the form of the Crown. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.