Mapp Wayne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mapp Wayne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11082] 
3.  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: Does she agree that the holders of customary title under the Government’s seabed and foreshore proposal can apply for customary rights which in the words of the Solicitor-General have “real power” including the “right to stop activities”; if not why not? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes they can. Whether they get any rights will depend on whether their application meets all the criteria that will be in the legislation. A customary right is the same as any other property right. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Given that the Minister has already stated that the customary title carries with it the right to be involved in decision making will the proposed legislation incorporate only existing provisions of the Resource Management Act or will it in fact provide additional provisions of consultation? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The provisions in the legislation will provide for adequate and appropriate opportunities for people to be involved in decisions that affect them. 
Tim Barnett 
: Will the holders of a customary right be able to prevent a development on the seabed or foreshore from taking place where that activity does not have a significant impact on the customary right? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: No it will not. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister recall the very successful 2002 campaign slogan of “fixing three things in 3 years” in particular the burgeoning Treaty of Waitangi industry and why did she ignore that and ignore the public’s view on it to the peril of her political party? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I try to be all things to all people but— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That question was very very wide of the original question asked but because it is Wednesday afternoon I will give the member another chance to ask it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that the member was campaigning in Tauranga and across the country does she recall the very successful slogan in the 2002 campaign about “fixing three things in 3 years” including the burgeoning Treaty of Waitangi industry and why did she personally ignore all of that as Minister and carry on misadvising her party to its political peril? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In so far as the Minister’s ministerial responsibilities are concerned she may answer. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I have no recollection of saying I would fix all the provisions in the Treaty of Waitangi grievances in 3 years. But it is demonstrably clear from the Government’s records the number of settlements that have been effected and the fact that at this stage we are engaging with over 25 claimant groups that we are certainly making progress in that area. 
Metiria Turei 
: When will the Government stop wasting its time debating Pakeha semantics with Pakeha and engage instead in a round-table dialogue with Maori to develop an agreed foreshore and seabed solution that recognises kaitiakitanga and rangatiratanga while meeting the needs of all New Zealanders? Mr Speaker are there any members who would like a translation of the te reo? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. Now the member is going too far. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to have the member’s translation of “rangatiratanga” in this context. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member wants to give the explanation of that she can. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to know who these “Murri” people are. 
Metiria Turei 
: I would like to know what he said sorry. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has been asked a specific question. She will give a specific answer. Then the question will be answered. 
Metiria Turei 
: Mr Speaker would you like to give me a translation of “rangatiratanga” in this context? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We have been asked whether you would. 
Metiria Turei 
: Certainly. The translation of “rangatiratanga” as used in this context is the chiefly authority held by the whanau hapu and iwi in a particular rohe or area that is exercised by the person who holds the chiefly position. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I think we have just seen a very good example of how this House can talk in many tongues and have some understanding of each! Certainly the Government is in fact engaging in extensive discussions and consultation with Maori. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Going back to the Minister’s answer to my first supplementary question given that customary title is intended to confer powers of consultation will she agree that those powers are additional to those that any other New Zealander has? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: All New Zealanders have a right to be consulted when applications are made for consents under the Resource Management Act. The various ways in which that consultation takes place are specific to the particular events. It is no more and no less. It is what is appropriate and effective communication. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: If it is the case that the Maori customary title confers the same right of consultation on Maori as any other citizen in the country has why on earth is the Government overturning 130 years of long-established precedent that established Crown title over the foreshore and seabed—the very title that this Minister last June in Parliament said she would confirm? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: With respect I find that question incomprehensible. It muddles so many different notions. What we are talking about here has been clearly stated. I will not repeat what has already been clearly stated by the Deputy Prime Minister in answer to a question to the Prime Minister. What we are doing here is ensure that the methods of communication that are already provided for in the Resource Management Act can take place in a more efficient and appropriate way—no more and no less. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Can she confirm that the current law states that the Crown owns the foreshore and seabed; if that is so what would be the effect on the Court of Appeal decision of simply passing another law that said no more than that the Crown owns the foreshore and seabed? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Very little. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If that answer is allowed to stand that is an insult to this Parliament. Parliament can surely do as it chooses. Dr Mapp asked a legitimate question—a very uncomfortable question for the Government—and it was answered on the basis of “We don’t really understand it but we’ll just chuck out some abuse around that question anyway.” The two Ministers then colluded—very unusual of course but perhaps not so for this Government—to get an answer that effectively insults Parliament. I suggest that the Minister does owe this Parliament a greater explanation than “Very little.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister was asked for an opinion and she gave it. It can be debated and objected to but she gave an opinion. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If the Minister gave an opinion could she repeat it? All I heard and I think all this House heard was her saying that she did not propose to answer the question with the spurious allegation that the Deputy Prime Minister had previously made it clear. All that he had done was babble mud. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: That member’s point of order relates to an entirely different question and an entirely different answer. The answer to the question I asked was “Very little.” That is because it is the law already so if we say it again it does not change it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That in fact was the point made.