Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:667;Page:14412] 
3. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Does he agree with ACT leader Rodney Hide’s statement on Radio New Zealand this morning in relation to ACT’s amendment to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill to explicitly prohibit Maori with customary title from charging fees for access to coastal areas: “I have an e-mail here from the Attorney-General’s office saying that they would support such a provision in the bill—that is to say I’ve got that in writing”? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I have not seen ACT’s amendment so I can neither agree nor disagree but I can say that although the bill does not enable charging for public access for the sake of absolute certainty I am prepared to promote an amendment to the bill to provide that public access is free public access. This accords with the Government’s and the Maori Party’s long-held bottom line of guaranteed public access and should satisfy the ACT Party’s concerns. Such an amendment would apply to all New Zealanders equally and would apply to all the common and marine and coastal areas which excludes those areas held in private title. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not sure that the Attorney-General has gone as far as he needs in order to answer the question. The authenticated quote that the member has put in to support his question refers to a provision in the bill—in other words an amendment—and it asks whether the Minister agrees with an assertion made by another Minister in respect of that amendment. The Attorney-General did start off by saying that he is not in a position to agree or disagree because he said he had not seen the amendment but the authenticated quote implies that he has seen the provision of the bill. If his answer could clarify both legs of the primary question as is allowed by the Standing Orders then I think that would be a fuller answer. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: There is a difference between a general provision and the particular amendment and that is the point I am making. The statement in the question related to the particular amendment. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is an interesting point that has been raised. As I understand it the question asked was a very simple question. It asked the Attorney-General whether he agreed with the statement made by Rodney Hide. It did not ask anything about an amendment. It asked whether he agreed with a statement on Radio New Zealand: “I have an e-mail here from the Attorney-General’s office saying that they would support such a provision in the bill—that is to say I’ve got that in writing”. That was what the question asked the Attorney-General—whether he agreed with that statement. I cannot insist on too specific an answer but as I listened to the answer given the Attorney-General referred to a different issue. The Attorney-General referred to the provisions of the proposed amendment but that is not what the question asked. It asked whether he agreed with the statement that begins “I have an e-mail here from the Attorney-General’s office …” and I invite the Attorney-General to answer that question. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I am not questioning you but it says “in relation to” the amendment and that is what I addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: With respect this is a primary question on notice. The point of the question is asking the Attorney-General whether he agrees and there is no precise answer to whether he agrees with the Hon Rodney Hide. But the particular issue he is being asked whether he agrees with is the statement “I have an e-mail here from the Attorney-General’s office saying that they would support such a provision in the bill—that is to say I’ve got that in writing”. The question asked whether he agrees that the Hon Rodney Hide has such a thing in writing. There is no specific answer to that but that is what the question asks. Given that it is a primary question I invite the Attorney-General to address that. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: In relation to a particular amendment the answer is no. In relation to the general question of charging for public access the answer is yes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the answer. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Can the Minister confirm that his current stance reflects greater affection for Rodney Hide’s view about race relations than his views about the Maori Party’s view of race relations in respect of the seabed and foreshore? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I have great respect and affection for both the Maori Party and the ACT Party with whom I enjoy working on a variety of issues and having vigorous exchanges without getting into personalities. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Does the Minister agree with the prevailing Maori view coming from a number of iwi that there will now be a hierarchy of property rights where Maori property rights can be diluted but no such restrictions will apply to those of others who might enjoy subsisting interests in the seabed and foreshore? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Well the Speaker was sedulous with me and perhaps a bit more generous in allowing that question. Let me say that a clear distinction needs to be made between customary title and freehold title and my answer to Mr Jones is this: one has to distinguish between the two concepts and the fact that freehold title is different from customary title does not mean it is inferior. So the answer to the question is no I reject those comments. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the honourable member I just point out to the Attorney-General that although he may be grumpy with the Speaker’s ruling he should not then comment on it. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: “Assiduous” rather than “sedulous” I think would have been— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Does the Minister agree with the Maori Party co-leader Dr Pita Sharples that Rodney Hide’s premature claim is mischievous and that the only reason ACT is going to do this is that it needs some wins and are we likely to see many other wins to the detriment of the Maori Party? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Well no it should be “sedulous” actually. But I think the better approach is this. I am privileged to have two strong coalition partners and they will express different views honestly and genuinely on the one hand. But the bottom line is this: I think everyone agrees—certainly the Maori Party does National does and the ACT Party does—that there needs to be guaranteed public access and an understanding that that should be free. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I invite the Minister to table the  
Oxford 
— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has been in this House a while— 
Hon Annette King 
: So has the Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: —order!—and knows that he should wait until he is called if he is raising a point of order. What is more he knows that that was not a point of order at all. I think both members have transgressed probably to a similar extent so we will consider that a draw. I think the Speaker may have lost in that exchange but never mind. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Is the Attorney-General saying that he will support an amendment to the marine and coastal area bill prohibiting the charging for public access to the beach? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The answer is that I will be very keen to promote such an amendment. My name is not Stalin; unlike when Helen Clark was Prime Minister I do not have it within my power to— 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order has been called. 
Hon David Parker 
: That sort of reference is unnecessary and brings this House into disrepute. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have to apologise to the honourable member. My hearing is somewhat impaired again at the moment and I did not actually hear what on earth the Attorney-General said. It is difficult for me to judge. I do not want the member to repeat it if it was ungenerous. I ask whether the member is prepared to withdraw the comment he made. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I withdraw. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate that. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I am prepared to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is the member now wishing to answer further? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I want to answer the question because yes I am prepared to promote an amendment. But the key point is that the devil is in the detail and in the wording. For example section 40(2) of the 2004 Act contains a prohibition on charging for use and occupation. It does not refer to access. It is important to get the wording right and that is what I will be doing as I undertake my duties sedulously. 
Hilary Calvert 
: Does the Attorney-General agree that iwi customary marine title holders will be able to charge a fee for new mussel farms over the foreshore and seabed for which they have title via a veto that his bill gives them through the planning process? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No because all existing use rights are maintained and that point is clear. 
Hilary Calvert 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We said “a fee for new mussel farms”. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House has become a little disorderly now and these interjections are not helpful when a point of order has been called; members know that. The member has raised a point of order to try to further clarify her question. She cannot do that. The member asked a question and the Minister answered it. He disagreed with the basic assertion contained in the member’s question. There is no facility for members to further clarify their questions. The ACT Party has used its two questions today and if questions are unclear that is not the Minister’s fault. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not contesting your ruling. It was not clarification. The question asked about title holders and new mussel farms. The Minister said “No” because it does not affect existing mussel farms. The point that Hilary Calvert was making was that the question was about new mussel farms. It was not changing the question; it was exactly the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What I will do on this occasion to clarify is invite the member as she is a new member to repeat her question so that the House can hear exactly the wording of it and I will ask the Minister to answer it again. 
Hilary Calvert 
: Does the Attorney-General agree that iwi customary marine title holders will be able to charge a fee for new mussel farms over the foreshore and seabed for which they have title via a veto that his bill gives them through the planning process? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The answer is that they could well be but it is not because of the veto.