Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19354] 
1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement of 7 April 2004 that the Government’s foreshore and seabed policy “guarantees access to the foreshore and seabed for all New Zealanders.” in light of reports that the Maori Land Court has decided to hear a claim for control of 50 kilometres of Eastern Bay of Plenty coastline; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes. The Foreshore and Seabed Act provides that the Maori Land Court can address only claims for customary rights orders. Under section 55 such orders cannot restrict access or navigation rights. It is indeed highly questionable that the claim the member refers to is one for control of the coastline referred to. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Maori Land Court has found that it has jurisdiction to consider a customary rights application for rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga over 50 kilometres of Bay of Plenty foreshore and does she accept that a customary rights order over such a vast piece of coastline is totally at odds with assurances given by her Government about the impact of the Foreshore and Seabed Act? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The matter at this stage is one for the Maori Land Court to deal with. The Crown of course will make its representations within the court and if need be—depending on the nature of the conclusion of the Maori Land Court—may take that a further stage in the legal process. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Prime Minister aware of how the judge’s minute in this case was released into the public arena and does she have any concerns about how that confidential minute was leaked into the public arena and who did so? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My understanding is that the minute was released by the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court himself to Mr Jonathan Milne which I am advised is not the normal practice. 
Metiria Turei 
: Will the Government stand by a decision made by the Maori Land Court operating under the Foreshore and Seabed Act or given Dr Cullen’s reported fury at the Chief Judge’s stance on the application will the Government persist in its Muldoonist habit of changing the law whenever it does not like the Maori land decisions returned by the courts? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Both the Act and the legal system provide avenues for the Government to appeal any decision by the Maori Land Court should it wish to do so. It would be most unwise of the Government to forgo any right of appeal at this stage. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Does the Prime Minister have any reason to doubt the impartiality of the Maori Land Court on this issue; if so what are those reasons? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: This is the first application dealt with under the Foreshore and Seabed Act. Therefore I think it is wise for all people to breathe deeply and wait for the outcome of the hearing before rushing to judgment. 
Dr Don Brash 
: What assurances will the Prime Minister give New Zealanders that should a loophole in the legislation be exploited to give customary rights orders over vast swathes of New Zealand’s coastline she will work with the Opposition to ensure that amending legislation is passed to rectify this serious mistake? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The application as I said before is probably not one that can be considered as being one for control of the coastline but an application for a customary rights order of some description. The application does not make it entirely clear what is being sought. The evidence filed in support so far is largely about collection of shells washing in sea-water for ceremonial or traditional purposes and the fishing and collection of shellfish. Even over 50 kilometres of areas or parts within with rights of navigation access being guaranteed this does not present a great threat to that member’s rights. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that there is a significant divergence between the applicant’s application and the view of the Maori Land Court judge—in this case Mr Williams—which is not part of the application; and how can this man go on being a Maori Land Court judge if he is prepared to release and leak a confidential minute from the hearing of the court to the media of this country? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My understanding as I said before is that this was not a usual practice of a judge in these kinds of circumstances. But as I also said let us wait for the hearing to proceed. The Crown will be taking a vigorous position within this hearing. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is the Prime Minister happy with the way her Government’s Foreshore and Seabed Act is written in light of Chief Judge Williams’ statement on an application for control over 50 kilometres of coastline: “The legislation appears to contemplate just this approach.”; if so how does this guarantee access to the foreshore and seabed for all New Zealanders? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Dealing with the second part of the question first any customary rights order under section 55 of the Act cannot infringe upon access or navigation rights. As to the other matters I think the member should read the judge’s minute a bit further. The judge in fact also states that there is a great way to go before Whakatohea can demonstrate what it is applying for. This is an application at this point. 
Dail Jones 
: Will the Prime Minister confirm that any application that is lodged for a customary order must relate to an activity or a use that has been continuing since 1840—was going on in 1900 2000 and 2005—and has never bothered any New Zealander in being carried out because the use of the foreshore and seabed has continued by all New Zealanders since that time so there should really be no concern on the part of anyone who actually understands the Foreshore and Seabed Act with regard to an application for a customary rights order? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is quite a long question. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I think that that is so. As I said before the evidence filed in support is largely about the collection of shells—something that I suspect some of us in this House who are non-Maori have engaged in in the past—the washing in sea-water for ceremonial traditional purposes which some might care to use and the fishing and collection of shellfish. 
Metiria Turei 
: I seek leave to table a copy of an article printed on 27 March that clearly illustrates Dr Cullen’s reported fury at the Chief Judge’s stance. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. The document will not be tabled.