English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8662] 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by the statement in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet foreshore and seabed proposal that “The foreshore and seabed should be public domain with open access and use for all New Zealanders.”; if so how can customary title coexist with public domain? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The statement is in a Government proposal not a Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet one. I am advised that it is possible for customary rights to coexist with the legal interests of others in the community. The previous National Government’s customary fishing regulations of 1998 would suggest that this is so. 
Hon Bill English 
: Would the Prime Minister now answer the question I asked which was whether customary title can coexist with public domain and can she reassure the House that if it turns out that customary title could include rights to exclude other New Zealanders she will legislate to limit the extent of customary title? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As the Attorney-General made clear in the House last week customary title would not exclude public access. 
Dail Jones 
: What is the difference in reality between the proposal contained in the main question that “The foreshore and seabed should be public domain with open access and use for all New Zealanders.” and the Government’s proposal of 23 June 2003 to legislate to give clear expression to the Crown’s ownership of the foreshore and seabed for the benefit of all New Zealanders? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I have said on other occasions my statement from the beginning has been that there would need to be clarifying legislation and that is what we are consulting about. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is it not the Labour Government’s position that the Maori Land Court may issue customary title to Maori for the foreshore and seabed for exclusive commercial development for marine farming and for licensed tourism for the gathering of resources for management purposes and in fact for anything except having fee simple title and the ability to restrict access; and if my understanding is wrong why does she not just front up at one of these hui and explain what the Government’s position really is? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member has come up with an interpretation of the Government’s position that has certainly never been on my mind. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does not the statement in the original question mean that all New Zealanders regardless of their ethnicity or origin indivisibly but equally own the foreshore and seabed; if it does not mean that then who does own the foreshore and seabed? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The assertion in the first part of the member’s question is precisely what the proposal is putting forward. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Were the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General Margaret Wilson wrongly reported on 23 June in respect of the statement that they were going to clarify through legislation that the foreshore and seabed ownership would lie with the Crown; was she wrongly reported then alongside her colleague Margaret Wilson in the same press reports; if so what steps has she taken to correct those reports from that day? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My statement was that the Government would need to clarify the legislation and that has been pointed out to a number of reporters. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister knows full well that those media reports carried the statement that the clarifying legislation would be to the effect that ownership lay with the Crown. The critical words are “with the Crown” not some dreamt-up republican concept that she came up with just today. I ask her to answer the question: were those reports from 23 June wrong; if so what steps did she take to correct them? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The report was wrong in respect of me and I have repeatedly pointed that out. 
Stephen Franks 
: In light of her response to Mr Prebble does she dissociate herself from Dr Cullen’s ingratiation with objectors at hui by telling them that “public domain was in fact abandonment by the Crown of its longstanding and generally accepted ownership of seabed and foreshore” because it was “unnecessarily confrontational with Maori claims to ownership”; and why will Labour not abandon the principle of colour-blind access to the seabed and foreshore just as readily as it abandoned a hui in Northland next time there is a Maori threat? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The day the proposal was launched I recall saying myself that in the current context the assertion of Crown ownership was considered to be divisive and that it was better to work on a proposal that would make it clear that all the people of New Zealand have a stake in this area while also providing for customary rights. 
Hon Bill English 
: How can the Prime Minister be so sure about what rights go with customary title when it is her own Government’s position that that will be sorted out by the Maori Land Court and in fact the only thing the Government has ruled out is fee simple title? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Government has ruled out two things: one is fee simple title and the other is any exclusion of public access. I would note that Mr English asserts customary title to leadership of the National Party—something others say is in the public domain. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That last sentence was unnecessary and is struck out. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We do have a dilemma with the way the Prime Minister answers questions. I listed for her a number of things that customary title would cover and she said she would never consider any of them. She then gives an answer now to Mr English saying in effect that every single one of the things that I have said must be in. The only problem with my list was that it was not imaginative enough. It appears to me that the Government by saying it is ruling out just fee simple title is saying that every other sort of customary title—which I say to the Prime Minister must include things like marine farming and economic development—must be in. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a debatable matter. 
Stephen Franks 
: I will try again: why did the Prime Minister keep answering last week’s questions and those today about the customary interest the courts will be allowed to create over public domain by saying that could not extend to fee simple title when she knows there are many kinds of interests even saleable titles that fall short of fee simple; and will she please tell us what will stop activist judges inventing or reviving property rights that this House would never pass? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What stops that is clear parameters for their actions. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could the Prime Minister advise the House that she will table here in a matter of 24 hours the evidence that she after 23 June sought to correct the journalist who reported at the time that her view and that of Margaret Wilson was that the question of ownership would be clarified by legislation—in short that it would be reposed in the Crown? On what occasions and how many times did she correct the media on that matter and could she provide some evidence to support what she is saying? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I can advise the member that my staff have advised a number of journalists of what the situation actually was. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that her policy that any restriction on public access is ruled out is new because last week when we asked the Attorney-General about it she refused to confirm that policy; and will the Prime Minister tell her Ministers what Government policy actually is? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: If the member had paid attention to what the Attorney-General said he would know that she said that the Government’s proposal would obviously exclude any attempt to exclude the public.