Eckhoff Gerrard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:627;Page:21903] 
5.  
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Rural Affairs 
: How important are property rights in forming Government policy and why does he believe that his proposal to have a 5-metre walking access way along significant waterways is not a “land-grab” or “confiscation”? 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Associate Minister for Rural Affairs) 
: 
 Property rights are important in the formulation of Government policy. In the case of the walking access policy I do not believe that it is a land-grab or a confiscation because this policy does not affect either title or land use. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Does he now accept that landowners in fact do own a bundle of rights to the property that they own which includes the right of exclusive use of all their land; if he does accept that would he please explain why his walking access proposal does not in his view take away that right of exclusive use? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: It is a clear principle of the Government’s policy that there will be no interference with the right of landowners to use their land as they see fit provided it is legal. What is not all right is for private property interests to capture sole use of public water for their personal private profit. 
Hon David Carter 
: Why does the Minister continue to ignore the concerns of thousands of farmers and the advice of Land Information New Zealand the Ministry for the Environment Treasury and his own Maori caucus simply to advance Helen Clark’s personal agenda? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The member should realise that the overwhelming majority of New Zealand farmers did not participate in the little gathering in front of Parliament Buildings today and he should desist from wilfully misquoting Government departments and members of parties other than his own. 
Stephen Franks 
: Will his bill faithfully uphold and protect the promise in the precise words of article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi—not the imaginary principles—to “confirm and guarantee” the “full exclusive and undisturbed possession of land for so long as it is their wish”; if not what weasel words will be used to get round such clear absolutely unequivocal language? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The Government is not proposing to offer members of the public exclusive occupation or use of other people’s land; it is proposing to give them certain and free access to the public water of which they are the owners. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Given that this Minister’s and this Government’s proposal will certainly disturb the possession right of Maori land does he not foresee and anticipate a treaty claim similar to the foreshore and seabed anguish that we have just had through the last year of this Government’s administration; and if he is thinking of exempting Maori land why will he not apply the same principle to all New Zealanders? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: As I have explained there is a difference between exclusive use and occupation and the right to access public water alongside land. I think members of this House should attempt to reach a reasonable balance between the public interest and private property rights instead of taking the modern selfish view of “Mine all mine and everyone else keep out or pay up.” 
Rodney Hide 
: On reflection will the Minister now apologise to protester Annie Carmichael who called out to him in the protest: “It’s not a joke Minister.” to which the Minister shot back at her: “You’re a joke.”; if he will not apologise to Annie Carmichael who made no personal attack whatsoever why not? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The member’s friend was attempting to shout me down after I had been invited to address the crowd. I gave as good as I got. If people think it is all right to dish it out then I think they should be prepared to take it and should stop whingeing afterwards. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Would the Minister explain why this Labour Government is giving access over private property to everyone yet I as an MP was denied access to Parliament grounds this very afternoon; is this not some form of hypocrisy or is it just that the Government hates horses as well as cats? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I remind the member that the Minister has no responsibility for that matter. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I trust that the Speaker who is helping the Minister out here is not ruling out the question. The question was perfectly in order. It just asked the Government whether there is a bit of hypocrisy in the situation that the Government is allowing everyone—any Tom Dick or Harry—to go over private property rights yet a Labour-appointed Speaker is denying an MP access to Parliament grounds which is an absolute outrage. The member should be allowed to ask that question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The question had to be about two things for which the Minister is responsible for the non-usable word in Parliament to be used—that is “hypocrisy”. What the member has now done of course Madam Speaker is attack your independence on that matter. The fact that you ruled that a horse is not allowed in here does not seem to me to be in any case some kind of example of political bias unless of course the ACT party gets horses voting on its behalf. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the Minister. As the member knows hypocrisy cannot be imputed nor was the Minister responsible for that decision—the Speaker was. If the member wants to address that issue to the Speaker it is not to be done in the House; it is to be done outside the House. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With the greatest respect a question was put to the Minister asking whether a double standard was going on here. The Minister is entitled to have an opinion about that. Perhaps he supports having a double standard. But we should hear it and hear his reasons why he thinks this Labour Government can allow anyone to go over private property rights but when it comes to Parliament if it does not suit it to have a demonstration occur here it is quite happy to refuse access. I think it was a perfectly reasonable question to put. If it can be seen on television why can we not at least ask a question about it—or are we ashamed of our actions? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The member has now compounded the error. The Government is not responsible for decisions that you Madam Speaker make as Speaker about access. [ 
Interruption 
] Indeed the question did ask that. One cannot have a double standard on the part of the Government unless the Government is responsible for both decisions. The Government is not responsible for the decision about a horse coming into Parliament. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Ministers are responsible for matters that are in their responsibility but if they do not have any responsibility for a matter then they are not required to answer a question about their opinion—that is outside their responsibility. So it is out of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In no way did the question ask about your decision. The question was about the bill the legislation for which the Minister is responsible. What it then did was contrast it with your ability as the effective landlord of Parliament to deny access and was asking whether the Minister saw a problem with his bill. It was all about the Minister’s bill not about your decision. Your decision was the comparison. The Minister is responsible for his legislation and therefore the question was in order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The matter might be resolved if the member—and I see he is writing—would like to put his question again in a way that falls clearly inside the Minister’s responsibility. It will not be an extra question. Could the member please restate his question. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Thank you Madam Speaker. I shall attempt to rephrase my question so that the Minister clearly understands it. Would the Minister explain why this Labour Government is giving everyone access over private land yet I as an MP was denied access to Parliament grounds? My question really is whether that is a double standard. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member has repeated the same question with the same problem. If he cared to phrase the question along the lines of: “Is the standard being applied in the Government’s proposal on access to private land different from what was applied in terms of the access of a horse to Parliament?” then the question would be in order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Although a member cannot ask a question on behalf of another member if that captures— 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Hell will freeze over before I listen to what the Minister of Finance suggests I should ask as a question in this House. My question as I have asked it as far as I am concerned stands. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Then I am sorry but the question is out of order. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Some days ago I wrote to you as Speaker of the House seeking your permission on a matter and giving you a complete and unequivocal assurance that the high standard of behaviour that you expect of MPs would be followed. I asked for the ability to bring our bus into Parliament grounds in order to have a better speaker system and also to ride into Parliament grounds on a horse—giving an unequivocal assurance that I would not abuse that privilege or that right that I do think is expected of me as a member of Parliament. I wonder whether you could explain to me and indeed the House why you turned me down on that particular issue given that I do have a right to enter the grounds of this Parliament. If I am allowed to come in on a skateboard as Nandor Tanczos does sometimes I fail to see why you denied me access on this occasion. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: That is not a properly raised point of order; it is a matter for correspondence. But I suggest that perhaps the member is unable to guarantee the behaviour of the horse—and some of us do have to walk across the forecourt afterwards. Nandor Tanczos’ skateboard is not able to engage in that type of behaviour. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Horses were allowed in Parliament grounds for over 100 years and no previous Speaker ever made a ruling against it. I think we are entitled to know; I think it is a reasonable question. Does this Government have a thing against animals? Is it just opposed to them? Or has it got a thing against protests—does it happen not to like them? If it does not that is quite extraordinary because one of the features of the New Zealand Parliament—and I think one of the best features—is that we are an open Parliament and we allow demonstrations. We used to allow people after they had taken part in a demonstration to come into this building because actually it is theirs and we are just the custodians. We do not have the right to start saying who is to come in and when they cannot. I think it is extraordinary that the Green Party members who support the Government are allowed to come along on any sort of skateboard that they like but the ACT party which is strongly opposed to the Government is told that it is not allowed to come and support ordinary New Zealanders exercising their democratic rights. I actually do think it is an outrage. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. As the member knows and as those who have contributed know this is not a matter of order in this House It is a matter that could have been raised with me— 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: It was raised. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No; contact was made and I was told that you would get back to the Speaker. You did not get back to me except in this House. That is not the appropriate way to handle it. But addressing the point—please be quiet while I am speaking—the same rules were applied to the ACT party as were applied to others who had applied to demonstrate outside Parliament. There was no difference in the rules. I do not want to have any further discussion on this matter because it is not a matter for debate in this House. This is question time. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In terms of being helpful to the House Mr Eckhoff is welcome to borrow my skateboard any time he likes.