English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8030] 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement that “the foreshore and seabed should be public domain” and does this mean her Government will move to extinguish indigenous title? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: The Government’s proposal is for the foreshore and seabed to be public domain. The Government’s proposals deliberately do not use the concept of ownership or the term “title”. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Court of Appeal correct when it states that Maori customary title must be extinguished before it can be regarded as ceasing to exist and if the court is correct will the Government move to extinguish indigenous title? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What the Government has stated is that the law the present Te Ture Whenua Maori Act will be changed so that the provision whereby one can move from the recognition of Maori customary rights to the granting of freehold title will be removed. 
Jill Pettis 
: What is the Government proposing to do to protect Maori customary interests in the future? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government proposed there should be processes to enable the customary interests of whanau hapu and iwi in the foreshore and seabed to be acknowledged and specific rights to be identified and protected. The Government is also proposing for a process to recognise ancestral connection between whanau hapu and iwi in particular areas of seabed and foreshore. 
Dail Jones 
: Is her use of the term “public domain” linked to the use of that term by the USA a federal republic to signify land owned and controlled by the State or Federal Government—what we in New Zealand a constitutional monarchy call Crown land and local body land; or is it linked to international copyright law which includes in the “public domain” icons such as Pinocchio Santa Claus and Huka Ma me nga whena e whitu—Snow White and her Seven Dwarfs? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Some parties go five better than that in my experience in this House. No the term “public domain” is actually used in New Zealand as well. Interestingly enough I find myself in agreement with the co-leader of the Green Party. The term that is used in England which has some historical relevance is the idea of the “commons”. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Given that both the Prime Minister’s and the Attorney-General’s initial response following the Court of Appeal decision was to assert Crown ownership and to legislate accordingly and that their position now is to legislate for non-ownership could the Prime Minister tell the House what is the practical difference between public domain and Crown ownership? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: One very important difference is that the language of ownership is clearly divisive in this context. If one wants to be divisive as one’s main purpose then continue to use the concept of “ownership” as the main consideration. 
Metiria Turei 
: Given the Government’s timetable for hui for Maori consultation on the foreshore issue what timetable of other public meetings has the Government organised to bring Pakeha and Maori New Zealanders together to explore options and potential resolution; if none why not given the damage to our community caused by the irresponsible racially divisive rhetoric being touted about by other politicians? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That member cannot use that phrase in relation to politicians in this House and she should be asked to withdraw and apologise and wash her mouth out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That last comment was unnecessary. The last part of the member’s question was unnecessary to complete the sense of the question and I ask the Minister to reply to the earlier part. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government certainly will be holding discussions and I know that many Government members are going to be holding discussions with a whole range of local groups in areas such as recreation environment access groups and so on. We will be discussing with whanau hapu and iwi via the hui process. I think in terms of legal decisions to be made around consultation in these sorts of areas we would be rather hard-pressed to explain why we are consulting everybody simultaneously. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: If “public domain” refers to land or space held on behalf of all New Zealanders who actually owns it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The essence of the Government’s decision is that we do not need to express the concept of ownership in this regard and surprisingly enough that appears to have the support of 58 percent of the public compared with 20 percent—which a number of parties are fighting over—who support Crown ownership. 
Hon Bill English 
: What action will the Government take in the light of the following statement made by New Zealand’s highest court—the Court of Appeal— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: No the Privy Council. 
Hon Bill English 
: —OK the second-highest court—“Maori customary title is no different from any other common-law interest which continues to exist unless and until it is lawfully abrogated.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We are going to remove the notion of moving to freehold title as part of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. The notion of title in itself is simply a statement of what one’s rights are. 
Dail Jones 
: If as the Prime Minister says no one will own the land would it then follow that no one can trespass on the land and therefore beach parties on the foreshore at say Mount Maunganui at New Year or on Takapuna beach or on Te Atatu beach will run rampant and uncontrolled because no one will be committing an offence because no one owns the land and therefore no one will be trespassing on it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The common misconception underlying that is that one has to own something in order to regulate it. Parliament is sovereign and under parliamentary authority regulation of almost anything can occur. There are two questions on today’s Order Paper complaining that this Government is regulating far too many things it does not own. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Is it still the Government’s intention to transfer the ownership of the foreshore and lake beds of 14 Rotorua lakes from the Crown to Maori; if so why is the ownership of the lake foreshores and lake beds different from the coastal foreshores and seabed? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Those are part of a treaty settlement. This is not a treaty issue; it is an issue arising out of common-law rights and the expression of customary rights and those need to be settled in a different way. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given the Court of Appeal’s view that indigenous title will continue to exist until it is lawfully abrogated can the Prime Minister confirm whether the Government intends to legislate in a way that will extinguish indigenous or customary title? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Court of Appeal uses a range of language but particularly uses the language of customary rights. It points out that customary rights are not extinguished unless explicitly so by means of legislation. Unlike the member opposite this Government is not proposing to limit that expression of customary rights.