Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:8883] 
10.  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Why did the Government decide not to appeal the Court of Appeal decision in relation to the Marlborough foreshore case to the Privy Council? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 The Government considered that the questions raised by the Court of Appeal as a result of its decision could best be addressed by working through the issues which is what we are doing in the present consultation process. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Has the Attorney-General seen the press reports of distinguished lawyers such as Paul Cavanagh QC and former Land Court Maori lawyer Marcus Poole at ACT’s foreshore conference on the weekend stating that the Court of Appeal decision was wrong in law; given this is it not irresponsible for the present Government not to appeal the decision to the Privy Council? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes I have seen the opinions of those two lawyers. I have heard the opinions of many other lawyers. All lawyers give opinions. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What is the Crown’s role in the appeal? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The Crown is no longer a party to the appeal and therefore will not be participating in the hearing of the appeal. We have played a neutral role in the appeal so far; for instance we did not oppose the granting of leave to appeal which I understand is yet to be heard and determined. 
Richard Worth 
: When the Attorney-General said that the Crown is not a party to the appeal why is she misleading the House when the Crown is a party to the appeal albeit that it has decided to abide by the decision of the court on the appeal; why is it that there has been a history by the Crown in the Maori Land Court the High Court and the Court of Appeal to argue that the foreshore and seabed are the exclusive property of the Crown and now the Crown is wimping out on that argument? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: It is true we were certainly a party to the Court of Appeal decision. We are not a party in the sense that we are pursuing an active role as far as the Privy Council is concerned. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Can the Attorney-General give a categorical assurance to existing owners of private title to the foreshore that following the chain of events arising from the Marlborough decision title to the foreshore that is now privately owned will not be taken away or removed without full and just compensation? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes. On previous occasions we have given that reassurance and there seems to be no reason to depart from it. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is the Attorney-General prepared to repeat in the House the statement she made to me—when briefing me on the Court of Appeal decision—that Crown Law advised the Government that the decision was wrong and the foreshore did belong to the Crown; given that is the real reason that the Government will not appeal to the Privy Council because to do so would admit that the Government’s decision to repeal appeals to the Privy Council is a dangerous mistake? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: No. It is not surprising that Crown Law which argued and lost would think that its argument would be better heard yet again in another forum. I think that is quite normal for any party in such proceedings. The reason we are not proceeding is in terms of the answer that I have already given the member.