Awatere Huata Donna: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Awatere Huata Donna: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:617;Page:12716] 
11.  
DONNA AWATERE HUATA (Independent) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Is it her Government’s intention to repeat the land confiscations of the 19th and 20th centuries; if so is that why she did not meet the hikoi yesterday? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: No. 
Donna Awatere Huata 
: Can the Prime Minister explain why Pakeha are to keep freehold title of foreshore while Maori are to be denied the right accorded to them by the Court of Appeal to have their case for ownership tested in a court of law and does she note the similarities between this and the Validation of Invalid Titles Act from the turn of the 20th century which legislated away Maori landowners’ right of redress to the courts for land taken without their knowledge or consent? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Contrary to what has often been reported there are only 59 private titles over the foreshore. There is frequently confusion between land that is above the foreshore and land that is on the foreshore. One-third of the land above the foreshore is in private title and one-third of that is held by Maori. That land is also all unaffected by this legislation. Some of the private titles over the foreshore are also held by Maori and the provision in this bill is that people who wish to test their territorial customary rights can go to the High Court. If it is found that the rights would have existed there is provision then for the Government to enter into discussions about redress. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Prime Minister not agree that it is somewhat ironic that in the 21st century under her watch the Government’s Foreshore and Seabed Bill will empower the Maori Land Court to confiscate Maori rights just as its predecessor the Native Land Court did in the 1800s? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The bill does not empower the Maori Land Court to confiscate Maori rights. It provides that the Maori Land Court is to have the ability to recognise Maori customary rights in a way it cannot do today; a fact that the Court of Appeal and the Waitangi Tribunal drew attention to. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it the Government’s intention to begin an education programme as to both the facts and legal relevance of this bill and to the points of fact as opposed to the myths and shibboleths being spread around this Parliament and across this country on this very important legislation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: A certain amount of material has been distributed on behalf of Labour Party members but not funded as a Government measure. We will continue to try to explain the actual nature of the legislation over the coming few months. I am confident that when it is passed and in practice people will be surprised that there is practically no noticeable change in their ordinary daily lives. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: If the Government is looking at restitution for 19th and 20th century confiscations is it also prepared to look at insisting on restitution for 21st century confiscations; in particular the taking of taxpayers’ money for Maori education and reading that was then used to go to fashion shows in Sydney? 
Donna Awatere Huata 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Not only is that question way outside the ambit of the original question but it is simply mean and nasty. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The last part I will ignore but yes the first part was outside the original question.