Anderton Jim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Anderton Jim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:664;Page:11878] 
10. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Does he stand by his statement that 2000 kilometres of coastline could be put into customary title? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 If the member reads the transcript from the relevant interview he would see that the figure came from the interviewer not me. I agreed that the figure would be an in-the-round guesstimate of that. It could be less than that figure of course. It will depend on iwi entering into negotiations or making an application to the court and it will depend on the facts as presented at any negotiation or in court. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: As the Minister’s long answer seemed to be a long way of saying yes is handing over the title of up to 2000 kilometres of land that belongs to all New Zealanders consistent with this statement made by Gerry Brownlee on the  
Agenda 
 programme on 10 March 2007: “National has made its position on this clear right from the start. We believe our beaches and our lakes should belong to all New Zealanders.”? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The position is absolutely consistent with what Mr Brownlee said. What we are talking about is customary title. The member’s question seems to assume that it is some kind of fee simple title and that is wrong. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: How then is the explanation of the Minister to the primary question consistent with this statement made by Gerry Brownlee on  
Morning Report 
 on 17 July 2007: “Labour has traded away the birthright of all New Zealanders and the unrestricted ownership through the Crown of all foreshore and seabed and turned it over to racially based control.”? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Public access is guaranteed and a new form of customary title will be developed and that is the position under the current regime. I am not interested—as that member is an expert in—in delving into the ancient past. I am dealing with the present and the future. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: If the Minister is not interested in the two quotes from Gerry Brownlee that I have already given then how can any of his attempted explanations about handing over the title of up to 2000 kilometres of land that belongs to all New Zealanders be consistent with this statement of Gerry Brownlee made on  
Eye to Eye with Willie Jackson  
on 7 July 2007: “National says the beaches should belong to all New Zealanders and we oppose race-based legislation.”? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The member in his dotage here is becoming more and more garrulous— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will be no—[ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. I say to the Minister that that answer is totally unacceptable. The member cannot abuse another member just because he asked a question. If I recollect it the member asked the Minister how he reconciled the Government’s position with a statement made earlier by a senior colleague. That might have a political overtone but it does not deserve abuse of the questioner. The House is interested in hearing the answer. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Where we get to today is as a result of an agreement made after the 2008 election with the Maori Party. A review was conducted of the Foreshore and Seabed Act and what we are trying to do is to come up with a proposal that takes this country forward. I would hope that the honourable member would be interested in joining with us on this rather than in being so destructive and negative. 
David Garrett 
: Can he guarantee that the public will have not just access to the foreshore and seabed under customary title but free public access and that no iwi or hapu will be permitted to charge members of the public who are enjoying traditional customary leisure activities on the foreshore and seabed under this customary code? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: If anyone is enjoying a customary leisure activity on the foreshore and seabed I have already made it abundantly clear that public access is guaranteed and I cannot for the life of me conceive of any reason why there would be charging for the average New Zealander enjoying public access along the lines of what the member said. 
David Garrett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I listened to that answer very carefully. The question began with “Can he guarantee”. His answer at the tail was— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We have heard sufficient. When members ask Ministers whether they can guarantee issues like that it is extraordinarily difficult. The member cannot expect a yes or no answer with regard to a guarantee like that. I think that the Minister gave a reasonable answer to the member’s question. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kei te whakaae atu ia ki te korero a te roia Maori a Moana Jackson na te teitei rawa atu o te taumata mo te customary title 
te taea 
te whakatutuki; ki te kore he aha ana kupu atawhai ki nga whanau ki nga hapu ki nga iwi? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The interpretation was not very helpful I regret to say. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Perhaps the Minister did not hear especially the early part of the question. Would the member mind assisting to make sure the Minister does understand the question? 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Does he agree with Maori lawyer Moana Jackson that the standard that has been set for proving customary title is so high that it is practically impossible to meet; if not what assurance can he give whanau hapu and iwi otherwise? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I thank the honourable member. There will doubtless be some iwi who can meet the test for customary title. Any application to the courts or any negotiations will be able to be dealt with on the facts unlike what happened under the 2004 Act. Although many iwi may be unable to obtain a customary title under the new tests they will still be able to enter into negotiations to obtain recognition of customary interests. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: He aha tana whakautu ki te korero a te roia a Prue Kapua “he tino taiapa te nui o te utu ki te kawe i te take nei ki te Koti Teitei mo nga iwi me nga hapu”? 
[ 
What is his response to the statement by counsel Pru Kapua that “the exorbitant cost is a real barrier for tribes and subtribes to take this matter to High Court”? 
] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: All litigation is expensive but the High Court option is the best option because of the lack of availability of judicial review the ability of the High Court to sit with experts the ability of the High Court to refer matters to the Maori Appellate Court if there are questions of tikanga or fact and the limited number of appeals. So I believe that the High Court route is ultimately less expensive.