Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19440] 
8.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by the statement made on her behalf in the House yesterday regarding the release of a minute from the Maori Land Court that: “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.”; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: I answer on behalf of the Prime Minister who is meeting with the Malaysian Prime Minister. The statement made yesterday was based on comments made by Mr Jonathan Milne to my parliamentary private secretary Russell Fairbrother when he stated that the judge gave him the paper. I am now advised that Mr Milne now states that he obtained the document by applying to the registrar of the Maori Land Court in Wellington. That of course is in conformity with the normal practice under rule 167 of that court. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does she support the statement made by her Attorney-General Dr Michael Cullen to the  
New Zealand Herald 
 that: “Parliamentarians have to be extremely careful about criticism of judges.”; if so will she now apologise to the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court whom she has falsely accused of leaking what is in fact a publicly available document? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The word “leaking” was not used at all in the parliamentary answer given yesterday. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. While that may be the sort of desperate clinging to a word in a question that gets a Minister off the hook surely the essence of the question does have to be addressed. There is no way that a Minister can simply say he or she did not use a particular word even though that may have been the inference of what was said. The Minister must address the question in its substance. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister like to expand on his answer. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I will expand by repeating what I said yesterday: that the document was released according to Mr Milne by the judge to him. Mr Milne was clearly less than careful in his use of words and I certainly regret any imputation that might have been contained therein. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Prime Minister stand by her indication to the House yesterday that the Government is prepared to appeal the Maori Land Court decision if need be in the case of the 50-kilometre stretch of the Bay of Plenty coastline; if so why does she not just save New Zealand taxpayers time and expense by fixing up the foreshore and seabed legislation which seems to have allowed customary rights to be claimed on the basis of kaitiakitanga and rangatiratanga? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It would be worth perhaps quoting somewhat further from the minute of the Chief Judge: “Of course whether there is sufficient evidence to make another claim to customary rights in the nature of rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga over the stretch of coastline in question is another matter.” 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked whether she stuck by her statement that the Government will appeal the decision of the Maori Land Court if it does not like it. To just simply quote another part of the judge’s minute does not answer that question in any way whatsoever. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I was clearly indicating that the judge certainly has not made up his mind about what the outcome will be. The Crown will make up its mind what its subsequent action will be depending on the nature of the judgment that is made. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Surely that then should become an answer. It should be given as an answer rather than as a response to a point of order. The question simply derived from the fact that the Minister was prepared to stand in the House when acting as the Prime Minister yesterday and to say that if the judgment went too far the Crown would appeal it. Today he is on the back foot having embarrassed himself by attacking the judge and is not prepared to stick by a decision that clearly was made yesterday. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have taken the point of order. It has been addressed. Both the point of order and the answer to the question have been addressed. Can we now move on please. 
Dail Jones 
: Is it not also correct—I am asking the Prime Minister this—that when one reads the minutes one sees that the judge makes the point and draws the conclusion that the applicants—and they are the 15 people in Opotiki who have not said whether they belong to hapu or iwi—must redraft paragraph 9 of their application to provide greater particularity in relation to the scale extent and frequency of the activities uses or practices that are the subject of the application which is the key to a customary use application and that the judge is thereby saying that the basis of the application must be reconsidered because the current application does not seem to establish one? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think it is fair to say that the Chief Judge has accepted an application and indicated that a great deal more work is required on the application and a great deal more evidence is needed. That suggests therefore that people should not over-react against matters at this point. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that the Chief Judge has said that a claim on the basis of kaitiakitanga and rangatiratanga certainly supported by a little more particularity would be enough for the court to hear the claim; if so why does the Government not move to amend the foreshore and seabed legislation in order to prevent kaitiakitanga and rangatiratanga being a basis for customary rights claims? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: This is the first claim taken under the Foreshore and Seabed Act. The judge has determined that the matters in front of him so far are sufficient to proceed further subject to further evidence being provided. It is in many ways a test case. That is why I indicated that if the outcome is such that the Government believes there are grounds for appeal then the Government will certainly appeal against the judgment. It seems highly premature at this point to rush in and start legislating against a judgment in a case that has not even begun to be heard at this particular point.