Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:669;Page:16392] 
9. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Is he aware of the widespread criticism of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill from both Maori and non-Maori submitters and does he have confidence that the bill will provide a durable framework for consideration of foreshore and seabed claims? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 Yes and yes. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister intend to seek any assurance from the Maori Party that it accepts that the Government’s new foreshore and seabed bill will if passed fully and finally settle the legal framework for consideration of foreshore and seabed claims; and if no such assurance is forthcoming will he be willing to consider adopting the solution favoured by Labour the Greens the ACT Party and many submitters—Maori and non-Maori—who say the issue of the threshold test as well as that of unextinguished rights ought to be referred back to the courts for statutory protection for access and non-alienation? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I am not really quite certain where the Labour Party stands on this issue because that may be the latest permutation but the submission by Dr Cullen—a very good submission—to the ministerial review panel emphasised the need for codification of the tests and said: “to wait upon protracted legal arguments developing in New Zealand jurisprudence in this respect would defeat the purpose of what many are seeking: both certainty and equity”. So in response to the second part of the member’s question I would say certainly not the suggestion is ridiculous. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What does he think these criticisms mean in terms of finding a durable framework for consideration of foreshore and seabed claims? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: As I said in answer to the member’s supplementary question Mr Goff seems to criticise the inclusion of tests to determine customary title but as I said that contrasts with what the submission to the ministerial panel by the Labour Party said. That said that the tests should be retained. Mr Goff also seems to think that we should just leave everything to the courts to decide and again that contrasts with section 96 of the Foreshore and Seabed Act and Labour’s 2008 agreement with Ngati Porou. So it is very hard to find out where the Labour Party stands on all this sort of thing. It is about as consistent as vomit. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the last part of that answer went over the top. 
Hon David Parker 
: Will the Minister agree to amend the Government’s bill so as to require that any proposed agreement between Ministers and claimants to confer customary title under that bill would be referred to the courts for ratification as is currently required under the Foreshore and Seabed Act for negotiated agreements under that Act? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Although the negotiated agreements deal with foreshore and seabed reserves what I have said all along is that when the submissions have been concluded I will have a good look at them and if there are issues that need to be addressed they will be addressed. That is the sensible thing to do when one is dealing with submissions that are still being heard by the select committee. I know that for example Waikato-Tainui and Ngati Porou are yet to make their submissions to the select committee. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: What does he make of Mr “Quinten” Hay’s submission on the bill or has he not bothered to read it? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I think the member probably means Mr Quentin Hay who is a former partner of mine in Bell Gully. If that is the person I have not read it but I certainly will. Then I will give the member my considered view. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: Was Mr Quentin Hay correct in his submission when he said that the Attorney-General must have been misreported in the comment— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has no responsibility whatsoever for answering whether someone was correct. The member can ask about his opinion on certain things but he cannot ask him to accept responsibility as to whether someone is correct when the Minister has no responsibility for that person whatsoever. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think that the second clause of the member’s question brought it in because it went to whether— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I was about to let the member rephrase his question. I ask John Boscawen to rephrase his question to bring it within the Standing Orders. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: Does the Attorney-General agree with Mr Quentin Hay who said the Attorney-General must have been misreported in the comment that ministerial deals provided for in clause 93 are akin to the settlement of a private dispute because the Attorney-General’s argument is “fallacious”? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: That sounds like Mr Hay. No as I have said I have not read the submission. With the greatest of respect to Mr Boscawen I am always very wary of listening to selective quotation. I will read the submission and then I will give him my considered view.