Turia Tariana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Turia Tariana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10681] 
6.  
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Deputy Prime Minister 
: He aha tona whakautu ki tetahi tono o na noa nei mo te Ture Takutai Moana ara i takarepa te hatepe mo te whakaae a Te Kooti Matua kia tono te Maori meina kei a ratau te mana i aukatia i raro i tetahi hanganga ture na te Pirimia i whakahau i te wa e rangirua ana ona whakaaro? 
[ 
What response does he have to the recent claim regarding the Foreshore and Seabed Act “that the process that saw a High Court decision to allow Maori to legally test their claims to ownership blocked by legislation promoted by a rattled Prime Minister was flawed”? 
] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 My response is that the quotation comes from a  
Dominion Post  
editorial that largely attacked Mr Key for not supporting the repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. I take it that the  
Dominion Post 
 having for once had a long swipe at the National Party in an editorial felt the need to have one short one at the Labour Party as well to even up the balance. 
Tariana Turia 
: Do you recall your speech of 12 October 2005 the Michael King Memorial Lecture which referred to the Court of Appeal’s finding that Maori claims to customary rights were a matter still to be tested case by case in the courts a finding about which you said: “In arriving at this conclusion I am sure the Court of Appeal was correct.”; do you still agree with that statement; if not why not? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Before I call the Hon Dr Michael Cullen I remind members that when they address members they must not include the Speaker in questions or answers please. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes those were carefully considered comments and indeed the processes for exploring those customary rights are at present under way in a number of instances. 
Pita Paraone 
: Ka whakaae te Minita na te whakaritenga o Te Kooti Pira i whakaharahara te kore marama ko wai te rangatira o te Takutai Moana koina te take i whakaritenga te hanganga ture kia marama mai te take kia riro ki te Karauna mo ake tonu atu mo nga iwi katoa o Aotearoa kia watea taurangi ki te iwi whanui me koi na te taumata o nga tautoko mo aua hanganga ture te kore tautoko o tenei Whare mo te hanganga ture whakakorenga? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Would he agree that the Court of Appeal decision highlighted the lack of clarity surrounding the ownership of the foreshore and seabed that legislation was required to clarify the issue and secure Crown ownership in perpetuity for all New Zealanders and guaranteed public access and that the level of public support for that legislation is clearly indicated by the lack of support in the House for the repeal legislation? 
] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think those are fair comments and it is worth reminding the House that at the time I told the House and the country that the ambition of the Government was to seek to change as little as possible with the Foreshore and Seabed Act. Indeed if somebody looks at what is happening now in 2007 and at what was happening something over 3 years ago it would be hard to find what has changed. 
Metiria Turei 
: Has the Minister had any reports that the National Party’s disgraceful U-turn on the Foreshore and Seabed Act where it now agrees with the confiscation of Maori land using blunt ill-conceived and prejudiced legislation is an identical position to the one taken by the Labour Government? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think I would agree with the odd indefinite article in that question but probably with practically nothing else in it at all. 
Tariana Turia 
: What has changed is people’s rights to justice. Which tribes have actually agreed with the Government’s Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 and what reasons did they give for agreeing to it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government is engaged in negotiations with three groups at the present time: Ngati Porou Whanau-a-Apanui and Ngati Porou ki Hauraki. I expect to be engaged in negotiations with a fourth group before too long. A number of other groups have lodged claims for specific customary rights before the Maori Land Court. As part of those negotiations I am not asking people to give away their assertion of unbroken mana connection with the foreshore and seabed and I hope we will be able to surprise the member at the outcome of those negotiations which will ensure there is fairness and justice for all. 
Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question I asked the Minister was not who was in negotiations with the Government but in fact who had agreed with the Government’s Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 and what reasons they gave for agreeing to it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister did address the question and as members know as the Standing Orders are at the moment they cannot require a specific answer to a question. All that Ministers are required to do is to address the question. 
Tariana Turia 
: Does the Minister agree with the statement in the 2006  
Kotuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online 
 that it is difficult to imagine how creating a system to exploit the foreshore and seabed for monetary gain including increasing mining of the foreshore and seabed activity which is generally destructive of the environment and of ecosystems might contribute to a concept of protection; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I will just say that social scientists are not always the best experts on legal or indeed mining matters. The Crown Minerals Act covers the issue of minerals exploration and in fact freehold title is not the most relevant consideration under that Act. The ability to proceed under the Ngati Apa decision would not have affected the Crown Minerals Act in that particular regard. The Foreshore and Seabed Act is not designed to allow for so-called monetary exploration. I have to say that the only people I am aware of who pushed that forward as the most important criterion were the group that came to see me after the Government announced its preliminary draft decisions on the matter who clearly wanted to operate some kind of ticket collection agency in relation to the foreshore and seabed.