Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:621;Page:16608] 
12.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Deputy Prime Minister 
: Does the Government intend to support the removal of ancestral connection provisions from the Foreshore and Seabed Bill; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I am still involved in a range of discussions with my own colleagues including Maori caucus committee colleagues and with New Zealand First. When those discussions are concluded I will be happy to provide the outcome of that process. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister have any concerns that the Government’s proposal to enable ancestral connection orders to be recognised for more than one iwi hapu or whanau over the same stretch of coastline will have an adverse effect on iwi capacity to establish coastal boundaries for allocation of fisheries and aquacultural quota; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No not necessarily but I do note the range of submissions that have been made on this issue and they will be considered before final decisions are made. 
Dail Jones 
: Has the Minister seen the National Party’s report on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill which affects these matters indicating that the National Party supports the recognition of customary rights now and has he received any indication from the National Party as to the manner in which this change of mind can be implemented? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In so far as this relates to the Minister being in charge of this particular legislation yes he can answer that part of the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have put our report in. To my knowledge we certainly have not been notified that it has been tabled. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I tabled it today. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: OK I did not hear you. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should have been listening. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a new point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a new point of order? What is it? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Yes it is. Firstly I would hope that when a point of order like that is called you would not tolerate members making the sorts of comments for which I was slung out of the House yesterday. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will sit down. He was not thrown out of the House for that at all. He was thrown out of the House because he used an unparliamentary expression that he refused to withdraw. He knows why he was thrown out yesterday. It had nothing to do with that at all. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How can the Minister responsible for that bill have any responsibility for what we put in our report? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister was asked whether he had received communication from the National Party. He can answer that question. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am aware of the support for customary rights orders expressed by the National Party in the report. To do that requires legislation. Otherwise one sits with the current law. First there is the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to consider questions of customary title and aboriginal title and under the Ngati Awa decision to award customary land status to Maori. I understand that the latter is opposed by National. It completely fails to understand that simply regulating that side of the equation does not cover the issue of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in this matter. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Under the current arrangements of the foreshore and seabed legislation what would prevent a 1/64thMaori living in Sydney from asserting ancestral connection rights through iwi affiliation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Under the bill as it stands at the moment it is possible to apply for ancestral connection orders which would be on behalf of a group of Maori. Normally they would be regarded as iwi hapu or whanau. The fact that somebody lives somewhere else does not remove the fact he or she has a connection back to his or her ancestors. I continue to support the Tottenham Hotspurs despite their appalling record over recent weeks. 
Metiria Turei 
: Will the Minister consider the Greens option that ancestral connection orders should give practical effect to the kaitiakitanga responsibilities that arise from whakapapa links to the coast rather than pursue further backtracking on Maori decision-making in the Resource Management Act as announced earlier today? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What the Government seeks to do arising out of the select committee process is to give clear expression to the impact of common law rights within a New Zealand context. If one approaches that from the context of a treaty framework then that is not in fact the correct legal framework for this matter to be dealt with. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does the Government intend to support either the removal of clause 8(2) from the bill or the amendment of that clause to make it clear that nothing in the foreshore and seabed legislation will affect the common law fishing rights exercised in this country by recreational fishers? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I said we are still involved in discussions on changes to the bill. However a lot of very useful technical submissions have been made by a variety of organisations and they will be taken account of in discussions now occurring and in the drafting that is occurring as well as we move alongside in a dual process. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can he confirm that the recently passed Maori fisheries allocation bill prevented iwi from getting hold of their allocation in areas where there were coastal boundary disputes and can he say how he expects the proposed law which will give ancestral connection to more than one group and therefore create boundary disputes between iwi will assist poor Maori getting the best effect of their fisheries settlement? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Even if the provisions remain in the bill it does not give ancestral connection to Maori. Maori have ancestral connection— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You’re being pedantic. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is not pedantic. That in fact is at the very heart of the issue that is under consideration. The reality is that Maori do dispute where the boundaries are between them. One of the issues in the Maori fisheries allocation bill was to provide a mechanism to ensure that those disputes did not drag on indefinitely into the future. 
Metiria Turei 
: Will the Government look at replacing ancestral connection orders with some kind of substantive process for Maori decision-making in the Resource Management Act as was sought by submitters to the Foreshore and Seabed Bill or is this Government so desperate for popular appeal that it will follow New Zealand First and National ensuring that Maori have as little decision making as possible in the Resource Management Act? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There are a number of issues. One is the issue of the recognition of specific customary rights. The bill provides and no doubt will continue to provide a clear set of mechanisms in relation to that though customary fishing rights are already dealt with in legislation and will not be affected by the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. On the other matter which is more relevant to the NgatiApa decision it is clear from the Court of Appeal decision that there is not expected to be some kind of general right held by all Maori everywhere. It is specific to those with particular rights in relation to what in the bill is called “territorial customary rights”. That of course is the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. I repeat the National Party does not understand that if we do not legislate around that then that inherent jurisdiction can continue to be exercised as freely as the court wishes. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: In the light of Chief Maori Land Court Judge Joe Williams’ recent activist statements does he think it is appropriate for the Government to be giving Maori Land Court judges jurisdiction to issue ancestral connection when clearly those ancestral connections will give some iwi leverage over others in preventing them getting at their fisheries allocations? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I know that I have said this a few times but I will repeat it. The Government is in the process of discussions with its own caucus membership and with New Zealand First. We have not made a decision on whether that part of the bill is staying in.