English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8520] 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement that she had heard that “traditionally Maori did not consider they owned those areas but they were most certainly kaitiaki. Now there may be the genesis of the answer in that.”; if so what specific work is the Government doing on changes to its original proposals on the seabed and foreshore? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. The concept is encompassed in the Government proposal. 
Hon Bill English 
: Noting comments from yesterday’s hui by one participant that he detected “a considerable shift in the Government’s position” and that the Government “had options up their sleeve which we have persuaded them of” could she explain to the House what shift the Government has indicated at the hui and what new options are being considered? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Perhaps as Dr Cullen was reported as saying yesterday also people are now getting into the detail of the proposal. 
David Benson-Pope 
: What recognition is there already of the kaitiaki role of Maori? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There is considerable recognition in the law—for example the Resource Management Act 1992 passed under the National Government requires that decision makers under that Act must have regard to kaitiakitanga which is defined as the ethic of guardianship by tangata whenua of an area in accordance with tikanga Maori and as including the ethic of stewardship. All territorial authorities have been working with this concept for a decade. There are also references to kaitiaki in the Fisheries Act 1996 the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act and the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act all passed under a National Government 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: How does the Prime Minister reconcile Dr Cullen’s publicly reported assurances to Maori in the Marlborough hui yesterday that the Maori Land Court would be left to define “customary rights” and not the Crown by statute and her own assurances she has given privately—for example to a law firm—that customary rights would be limited by statute; or is the Government saying one thing to Maori at the hui and another thing to the public and that is why the Government does not want television to report it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is clear in the Government proposal that the Maori Land Court could not as the end point of its work on a claim go to fee simple title. I know that ACT is far more interested in property rights than customary rights. Our opinion is that Maori generally are very interested in the customary rights element of the proposal. 
Bill Gudgeon 
: If the Government is discussing a co-partnership with Maori on the foreshore issue what are the Government’s intentions concerning the co-partnership? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: In the detail of the Government proposal there is reference to systems for acknowledging those who have mana over or ancestral rights of association with an area. There is then further reference to what rights could ensue from the acknowledgment of mana over or ancestral rights of association with an area. As I pointed out in answer to an earlier question the concept of kaitiakitanga and the ethic of stewardship are now well embedded in the law. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Prime Minister consider taking the kaitiaki or guardianship concept as a starting point that it might yet prove possible to give ownership to all the people of New Zealand over the foreshore and seabed as guardians of these assets for present and future generations? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That is inherent in the concept of public domain. The principles the Crown set out include also the principles of regulation but in upholding Maori customary rights undoubtedly the concept of kaitiakitanga will be important. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is she dancing around the pinhead with all sorts of new expressions and concepts many of which do not belong in this country—[ 
Interruption 
]—like the republican idea of a public domain? Why is she doing that when she actually said on the day after the Court of Appeal decision that she would clarify the law to ensure that the ownership of the foreshore and seabed lay with the Crown? Why is she backing down on that statement? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What I said that day was that there would need to be clarifying legislation. I am looking forward to the member making it very plain to Maori audiences that he believes there should be legislation for Crown ownership. That is not the message he wants to get around to Maori. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister explain just what the Government means when its spokesperson Margaret Wilson says that the Government is now interested in taking a stronger co-management perspective; can she reassure the House that she is not headed down the path of a partnership arrangement for owning and regulating the seabed and foreshore? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I recognise that concepts of partnership are completely alien to the National Party. What I will say is that the notion of kaitiakitanga is a very deep one to Maori and that that party when in Government legislated for example in the fisheries legislation for there to be management devolved to iwi over fisheries areas. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Prime Minister now seeking to back down from her very words on the day she and Margaret Wilson put out a joint press statement that they would clarify the ownership of the foreshore and seabed as being with the Crown which is precisely what she said; and with regard to her invitation to me is she not aware that we made a statement on day one as well and that unlike her we are not backing down from it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The statement I made was that there would need to be clarifying legislation—and there will be. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: My supplementary question to the Prime Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is the only warning today. Mr Prebble alone has the floor. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder why it is that when a person on this side of the House interjects during a question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It was actually a person over there. 
John Carter 
: You were looking at this side of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry if I was. It was a person on the Government benches and I gave that person—and everyone—one warning. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Would the Prime Minister clarify the answers she gave to my supplementary question when she enunciated the novel legal principle that customary rights are not a property right; if that is her view why does she not front up at one of the Government’s 11 huis to see how she gets on? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That of course twists what I said. What I said was that ACT was very interested in property rights and could not give a damn about customary rights. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has done it again. I am quite happy to go myself with her to a hui and have her explain how customary rights are not property rights. I would love to be there. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that is not a point of order. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement that: “I am the most modest Prime Minister I know in my opinion.” and does that modesty extend to admitting that she has backed down on the statements made a couple of days after the Court of Appeal decision first came out when she confirmed what most people thought—that the Crown owned the beaches and the seabed? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Government has put out a clear proposal. It is in listening mode and unlike the member I have a lot to be modest about. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the remarks comments and reportage from the Prime Minister on day one before she did her somersault. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those statements. Is there any objection? There is.