Garrett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Garrett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:666;Page:13767] 
3. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Where in the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill is it guaranteed that access to beaches held under customary title will be free? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 The whole scheme of the bill prohibits charging for public access. I invite the member to look at clause 27 which guarantees public access to the common marine and coastal area; clause 60 which specifies that customary marine title exists in a particular part of that area; clause 63 which sets out the scope of rights that may be exercised by customary marine title-holders; and clause 64 which specifies that those rights do not include charging for public access. The only restrictions on public access in the areas are the reasonable ones that already exist—for example picnicking at ports fly-fishing off naval bases or playing beach cricket on burial grounds. 
Metiria Turei 
: Can the Minister guarantee public access to the foreshore areas currently held in the 12500 private titles? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The position with the 12500 titles remains what it was when the 2004 Act was passed. The titles are private titles and we are dealing with other areas of the coastal marine area. 
Metiria Turei 
: How does the Minister justify legislating for public access to foreshore held in Maori customary titles but not for that held in those 12500 private titles—why the discrimination? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: There is no discrimination. It recognises—and this was the case in the 2004 Act as well—that there are private titles for various reasons in the coastal and marine area. Those titles include land held as Maori customary land and freehold titles held by both Maori and Pakeha. 
David Garrett 
: If Maori owners under customary title do start charging for access or restricting access to the foreshore and seabed what penalty is there in the new law to stop them from doing so? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I have already said that it is not possible to do so. Any attempts to deal with that situation will be made by the Minister of Conservation who will have adequate powers to deal with those sorts of problems. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Has he seen the comment from Ngati Porou leader Dr Apirana Mahuika: “My advice to the Maori Party is to persist with the repeal because all iwi want a repeal of the act so that their mana can be assured by the Crown and that their mana be inalienable unbroken and sustainable.”; and how well does the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill respond to this advice? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No but like so much of what Dr Mahuika says it seems to be very sound advice. The mana of iwi and hapu is explicitly recognised in the bill. It provides for a recognition of tupuna or ancestral connection to the coastal area. It contains an acknowledgment of the mana-based relationship of iwi and hapu to the marine and coastal area in their rohe. 
David Garrett 
: Does the Attorney-General agree with Maori Party MP Te Ururoa Flavell that “another go” may be required; if not can he categorically rule out extending the time available for claims from 6 years while he is the Attorney-General? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The limitation period is 6 years. That is what the Government thinks represents a fair balance of all rights. As to whether I agree with Mr Flavell he is an excellent MP. It is great to work with him so that we can get rid of this disgraceful 2004 Act. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Attorney-General agree with the Prime Minister that the proposed legalisation should settle the legal framework for foreshore and seabed claims? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Well of course I do. He is the Prime Minster and he is always right. 
Hon David Parker 
: Given his belief that the legislation should settle foreshore and seabed issues is he concerned that the Maori Party acting leader publicly stated yesterday “We will certainly be looking at it again” and there would be “another time for our people to come back and have another go in the future.”? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I know this is probably an alien concept to the Labour Party but that is democracy. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In response to my prior question he agreed that this should be the legal framework for settling claims and my question was quite simple: was he concerned by the Maori Party saying that it would have another go. That answer did not address that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister in answering the question said that that is democracy and I imagine he was indicating that it is impossible to bind what future Parliaments might consider doing. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If that is what the Attorney-General had said and all he said then I think the people on this side would not be happy but I think there would not have been a breach of the Standing Orders. I invite you to maybe afterwards look at what he did say in particular about a party on this side of the House and whether that was conducive to good order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s point of order is fairly made that if Ministers are going to give an answer that is perhaps on the margins of being acceptable then they should not preface it with a criticism of the questioner’s party. It is probably a bit late for me to go back on this one now but I warn the Minister that if he is going to give an answer that is marginally acceptable then he should not preface it with that kind of comment. The Hon Trevor Mallard’s point of order is perfectly well made. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement earlier in the year: “In the end if we can’t reach an agreement then the status quo will remain”; if so does the Government intend to seek an acknowledgment from the Maori Party that it will accept that the legislation settles the issues and if it will not give that assurance then will the status quo remain? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Again as to the first part of the question of course I agree because the Prime Minister said it. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Does he agree with Hokianga elder Rudy Taylor in his comments regarding the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill that Maori have always shared the coastline with their Pakeha neighbours and it is absurd to suggest that that will change; if so what does he think will be the key impact of the racially divisive campaign promulgated by the Coastal Coalition? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I strongly agree that a culture of welcoming people of sharing and of hospitality pervades Maori culture. That has always been my experience whether visiting iwi to discuss the Government’s proposals this year or going out on the road to discuss settlement of historical Treaty grievances—and I understand why those members get excited about that proposition because they never did it.