Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6468] 
3.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: Is it Government policy that treaty settlements are full and final? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that the 1992 fisheries settlement was “full and final settlement of all claims to commercial fishing rights” and that the definition of “commercial fishing rights” clearly includes marine farming why does she state in the Christchurch  
Press 
 this morning that claims by iwi for a cut from the profits by aquaculture farmers in the Marlborough Sounds were still being considered? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I do not have responsibility for that settlement. That is the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries. I do apologise if I do not have all the detail that is required to answer this question. However my understanding is that those matters on aquaculture are under discussion at the moment and decisions will be made in the near future. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Minister confirm that both the Tainui and Ngai Tahu settlements concluded by the previous National Government have ratchet clauses meaning that those iwi can have another bite at the cherry and therefore those settlements cannot be considered to be full and final? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes. Certainly the previous Government did include clauses in those settlements. They have not been included in any settlements under this Government. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: Do historical treaty settlements extinguish Maori customary rights? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: No the treaty settlements only settle historical claims. They do not extinguish any aboriginal title or customary rights that may exist or have effect on them. Indeed treaty settlements contain explicit provisions to that effect. However under the settlements the Crown retains the right to challenge the nature and extent of any aboriginal right or customary right that Maori may assert. 
Stephen Franks 
: Given the exclusion of customary use rights under the treaty from settlements will she guarantee that access to beaches and seabed in so-called Crown ownership will be available equally for all New Zealanders without distinction or privilege on the basis of race or ethnic inheritance; yes or no? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes that is the Government’s intention. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What does she think her statement that claims by iwi for a cut from the profits by aquaculture farms in the Marlborough Sounds are still being considered does for investment confidence for the hundreds of marine farmers who have invested their life savings and what is she doing to try to create clarity for those important contributors to the New Zealand economy? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I am at a disadvantage here because I do not have the actual quotes of that statement. I have no recollection of making that statement so I would appreciate it if the member would give me a copy of it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the article in the Christchurch 
 Press 
 this morning in which the Minister said those words—that is that she was open to Maori receiving a cut from aquaculture farmers. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dail Jones 
: Taking into account Mr Smith’s reference to aquaculture and obviously to the Marlborough area as well in the recent Court of Appeal case—going back to Judge Hingston’s decision did he not make only a provisional determination that customary title may still exist but then he granted leave for the parties to appeal his decision to see whether they wished to contest his findings of law; and did he not say that further hearings were required to establish whether any Maori customary title did in fact exist? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I understand there were several appeals from the result of the original decision. That is why it took 5 years to get to the Court of Appeal. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that over the last 3 days she has seen fit to comment on issues of legal rights in the marine environment does she accept that the 1992 fisheries settlement amounted to a full and final settlement for commercial fishing including marine farming? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I repeat I do not recall the details because it is not within my ministerial responsibility. However my understanding was that aquaculture was in fact separate. But I suggest the member lay a question down for the Minister of Fisheries.