Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:11775] 
1. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by the statement given on her behalf regarding the seabed and foreshore “the language of ownership is clearly divisive in this context. If one wants to be divisive as one’s main purpose then continue to use the concept of “ownership” as the main consideration.”; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Government always known that the National Party would support Crown ownership for the seabed and foreshore and that the number of votes it could achieve from other parties was irrelevant and is not the real issue on the Government’s agenda—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is the one and only warning today. Please start the question again. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Government not always known that the National Party would support Crown ownership for the seabed and foreshore and that the number of votes it could achieve from other parties was irrelevant and is not the real issue on the Government’s agenda to take Treaty of Waitangi issues off the political landscape until after the next election by use of this proposed commission? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: To the first question yes. To the second question no. The Government does not regard the views of other parties as significant in comparison with those of the National Party. To the third question this is not actually a treaty issue at its heart. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: In the light of that question and the answer to it has the Prime Minister received any approaches since the Court of Appeal’s ruling last year from anyone in the National Party seeking to discuss this issue with her and how it might be advanced in the bipartisan way that Mr Brownlee seems to be suggesting? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Indeed the honourable member has suggested such an approach and I seem to recollect the National Party rejected it. I should point out that legislating for Crown ownership by itself is a rather pointless exercise because that is already the law. If one simply re-enacts the current law it will have no effect at all on the Court of Appeal decision. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is it his intention that the Crown should own all the foreshore and seabed or will the 12500 parcels of land in private ownership identified in the Land Information New Zealand report to its Minister be exempt; if so does this mean that there is a lesser standard of citizenship for Maori? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the member is getting confused between those titles that are actually over the foreshore and seabed and those in private hands that abut the foreshore and seabed. I think there is something like 59 titles on the foreshore and seabed. My understanding also is that—[ 
Interruption 
] No abutting the foreshore and seabed not on the foreshore and seabed. My understanding is that approximately a third of those are in Maori hands. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is the Prime Minister aware of the repeated statement by the Deputy Prime Minister that legally there is no difference between the concept of public domain and Crown ownership; if so would not New Zealand First and National be wise to look at the details of what Labour proposes before giving it a rubber stamp? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister is aware of almost everything that the Deputy Prime Minister says. She would recommend that Opposition parties always pay careful attention to the detail of anything the Deputy Prime Minister says. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I seek leave to table a 12 December 2003 document to the Minster for Land Information. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dail Jones 
: Will the Prime Minister confirm for the benefit of many New Zealanders who are confused on this issue that when we talk about the foreshore we refer to the land from the high-water mark down to the low-water mark and when we talk about the seabed we are talking about the bit from the low-water mark out to Chile on one side and out to Australia on the other—the East Coast and the West Coast? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On the first yes. On the second no. In New Zealand legal terms we do not claim the seabed out as far as Chile. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is it not true that the Government had been considering its U-turn away from public domain back toward Crown ownership well before the meeting the Prime Minister had with New Zealand First this week but about 9 months after the National Party stated that the foreshore and seabed should remain in Crown ownership; and was not the Government’s reconsideration begun after public reaction to Dr Brash’s Orewa speech? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No the Government is not considering a move away from public domain. To understand that remark the member will have to await further the details of the policy. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Accepting the Prime Minister’s assurance that it is the details that are important can the Prime Minister confirm that it is still the intention of the Government regardless of whether the term “Crown ownership” or “public domain” is used to create by legislation a new form of title in favour of Maori that the Attorney-General tells us will cover virtually all of the coastline of New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I indicated in the previous answer the concepts of Crown ownership and public domain are not mutually exclusive. The issue is around what the title is expressed as. On the second matter the member will have to await the finalisation of the policy but there is no suggestion that there is going to be an alternative title system around the country that conveys any form of exclusive usage.