Mapp Wayne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mapp Wayne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11589] 
6.  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: Can she explain why she believes “Maorialready have customary title over the whole coastline.” given that the Court of Appeal expressed “real reservations about the ability for the appellants” in the NgatiApa case to establish Maoricustomary title? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes. The Court of Appeal was referring to an exclusive title. The Government in its foreshore and seabed policy uses the term “customary title” to describe when a Maori group has an ancestral connection only to the foreshore and seabed. This customary title does no more than acknowledge that ancestral connection. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: What then is the point of the Government’s foreshore and seabed proposals which state that Maori will have the opportunity to apply to the Maori Land Court for customary title if the Minister believes that Maori already have customary title? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The point of the Government’s policy is that the Court of Appeal decision would have provided an exclusive fee simple title if the Act had not been amended. The Government’s policy is therefore to make clear that there is public access to the foreshore and seabed and that is why it was necessary to clarify that customary title in future will relate to the ancestral connection only. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Is the concept of ancestral connection being incorporated in New Zealand law new? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: No. In 1998 and in 1999 the Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations and the Fisheries (South Island Customary Fishing) Regulations used a similar concept. These regulations allow for a specific area to be notified as the group’s rohe moana—put simply a group’s rohe moana is that part of the foreshore and seabed to which there is an ancestral connection. 
Dail Jones 
: Why does the Minister in her important position continue to disagree with Chief Justice Elias of the Court of Appeal in the NgatiApa case paragraphs 9 and 14? The Chief Justice made it clear that Maori customary land is held by Maori in accordance with tikanga Maori as set out in the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act which requires the establishment of links such as ahi ka and does she know for certain that Maori have links with ahi ka to enable them to make any customary claim; if she does can she tell the House what they are and if she cannot will she apologise to the country for misleading the House the country and creating racial disturbance in New Zealand? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were four questions there. The Minister may answer two of them. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The purpose of the Government’s policy was to ensure that the Court of Appeal decision which would have denied public access to parts of the foreshore and seabed did not do so. The purpose of the policy was to remove the ability of the court to be able to provide for an exclusive private title. 
Stephen Franks 
: Does she stand by her claims yesterday that the whole seabed and foreshore issue is about customary rights that do not from a Maori perspective need legislation and will she now undertake that if her legislation ever emerges it will not create new race privileges never before recognised in our law? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes I can give the member that assurance because they will be customary rights that will be recognised and whoever has a right to those customary rights will be able to exercise them. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Can she explain why today’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 reports that she appeared ambivalent about whether the Government would stick with the term “customary title” in the proposed legislation; and is it true that the Government is considering abandoning the concept? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I am not responsible for the interpretation that the  
New Zealand Herald 
 makes to any comment I might make. But as I pointed out there is no change in our policy. 
Dail Jones 
: Why is the Minister failing to accept the views of the President of the New Zealand Court of Appeal as expressed in paragraphs 101 and 102 of the NgatiApa case when he says: “Under the common law all land is held by the Crown upon the assumption of sovereignty. Title is obtained by grant or other alienation from the Crown. With the exception of Crown land reserved for Maori land not alienated from the Crown may have the status either of Maori customary land or Crown land. There is no ‘default’ status. It is one or the other.” or does she believe her view is superior to that of the President of the Court of Appeal? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: If the Court of Appeal decision were to stand then New Zealanders would have been denied the right to be able to have access to the foreshore and seabed. 
Stephen Franks 
: I ask the Minister to review her answer to the last question when I asked for an undertaking that no new race privilege would be created not previously known to law and to tell us just why it is that this legislation is covering the whole coastline when the Court of Appeal said it would be rare if ever that common law would give customary use rights a recognition in title? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: If the Court of Appeal decision had been allowed to stand it would have been possible for Maori customary land status to be given that would have resulted in an exclusory title. That has been the whole purpose of this policy. That is why it was important to change it because as the member well knows that would have created a property right which would have given a right to deny people access to the foreshore and seabed. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister made no attempt to answer the actual question. She repeated the stated purpose of the Government’s policy but did not answer the question which was why this legislation covers the entire coastline when the Court of Appeal said it would be rare if ever and would rely on the establishment of customary use rights. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address some of the question. If she wants to add to it she may do so. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The point is that whether it is whole or part the principle remains the same. Also on looking at the Act it could have been interpreted by the Maori Land Court not to be in a few rare cases. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government is intending to abandon the concept of customary Maori title in its proposed legislation? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: In the sense of an ancestral connection no. 
Dail Jones 
: Why should any political party in this House give any support to Labour Party foreshore and seabed legislation when the Minister makes statements such as “Maori already have customary title over the whole coastline.” and when legislation will presumably be based on that statement which is misleading and giving grave concern to many millions of New Zealanders in the race relations area today? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The public should have confidence in this Government’s approach to that policy because it will guarantee that they have a right to go on to the foreshores and seabeds of this country.