Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:621;Page:16880] 
3.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement of 7 April 2004 regarding the foreshore and seabed legislation that “the government has undertaken an exhaustive process of policy development.”; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because we have. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why is a Supplementary Order Paper rumoured to be 120 pages in length being introduced into the House today to change the foreshore and seabed legislation if the Government had prepared it so exhaustively; and how can she expect Parliament to consider legislation on such a matter of such major constitutional importance without having seen its substance until the very day it is asked to vote on it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The reason for the Supplementary Order Paper is obvious: a select committee heard a great deal of evidence. Although the committee itself was not able to report back New Zealand First and the Government parties did listen and have brought back a Supplementary Order Paper. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Prime Minister consider it good government that most Maori will not even see the final shape of the legislation which removes their common law rights and their treaty rights before it is passed into law? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The bill does not remove common law rights. 
Rodney Hide 
: Can the Prime Minister name one controversial bill outside of Budget legislation that has been brought to this Parliament to be passed under urgency without the Opposition parties even having seen it; and what would be wrong with having the second reading this week and polishing the bill off next sitting week? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question has to be accurate: we are an Opposition party and we have seen it. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet and the member will sit down or he will leave. That was not a point of order and the member knows it. It was a political comment. Whether the answer was to the member’s satisfaction is a matter for the House.  
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The problem with that interjection of course is that Mr Peters is trying to get around the fact that he has now become this Government’s doormat and he certainly should not be raising a point of order and trying to get out of that point. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That member also has not raised a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The last member who raised the point of order knows he cannot get away with that. It was simply a case of: “Could we fix it? Yes we could.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am warning the member. That is the last warning—if he wants to stay in the House for question time. I now want the Prime Minister to answer the question. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Mr Peters has quite rightly said that an Opposition party has seen the Supplementary Order Paper and that indicates that the Government is always happy to work with Opposition parties where common cause can be found and in that respect I welcome ACT’s decision to participate in another important select committee on constitutional reform—unlike the National Party which is abrogating its responsibility. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is quite possible that the Prime Minister forgot my original question which was about her naming one other piece of legislation and my question talked about Opposition parties. I do not regard Winston Peters as anything in Opposition and the points— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I am not having those parenthetical comments made during a point of order. I am hearing the member’s point of order which was according to what I have heard—and I have heard sufficient—that the Prime Minister did not address the question. I thought she did. 
Dr Don Brash 
: What does it say of her attitude to major constitutional legislation like the foreshore and seabed legislation that she intends to table some 120 pages of last-minute amendments which most parties in the House will not even see before they have to vote on them? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is really up to the National Party if it does not want to read the Supplementary Order Paper before it votes. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is bad enough that you have allowed Mr Peters to bail the Prime Minister out by spurious points of order but the question here quite simply was: why will the Prime Minister not make the range of amendments that will be included in this Supplementary Order Paper available to the House in good time before a debate takes place? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: As I indicated before the Supplementary Order Paper will be tabled as soon as possible. It includes the protection of customary rights as supported by the National Party. It supports Crown ownership. It removes ancestral connection orders. What is it they oppose in this bill? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I have asked the Prime Minister to comment on the original question that was asked by the member. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am advised that the Supplementary Order Paper will be tabled later today and there will be plenty of time for the National Party members if they can give up their dinner hour to read the amendments. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could I ask the Prime Minister whether it is a fact that every parliamentary party could if they had decided to continue the select committee process have had access to all the Supplementary Order Papers and moreover is the length of the Supplementary Order Paper because of the fact that there are certain members of this Parliament who simply cannot get their heads around this issue and are more interested in shibboleths and myth making? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of the question is in order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How can it be in order for the Prime Minister to comment on the select committee process before the bill is reported back? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Firstly the bill has been reported back. Secondly—[ 
Interruption 
] I am getting a little tired of these interjections while I am on my feet. That is a direct comment to the Government. The bill has been reported back and secondly I consider that the Prime Minister did address that particular question. 
Stephen Franks 
: Can the Prime Minister name one piece of controversial legislation outside of Budget legislation that has been brought to Parliament to be passed under urgency without opposing parties even having seen it; and what would be wrong with having a second reading this week and the Committee stage next week so that it could be an informed debate? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Under MMP where Government and support parties may not have a majority on a select committee it is quite possible that there will be cases—there have been in the past and there will be in the future—where it was not possible to deal with amendments to a bill in a select committee. In that case the amendments will come back to this House to be dealt with. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is the Government’s definition of an exhaustive process one where Maori are left completely exhausted and completely ignored? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My definition of an exhaustive process is a debate that has now gone on for 18 months and that has included a discussion paper a full round of hui a further set of proposals and a very full select committee process before being debated in this House. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is the Government rushing through the Foreshore and Seabed Bill in order to disguise the fact that the label “Crown ownership” is a farce since in practice it is qualified by extensive Maori rights and governance powers; if not why is it suddenly necessary to put the bill through in a matter of hours when the Government has previously indicated it would go through normal processes? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would have thought there was nothing about “full and beneficial ownership resting with the Crown” being a sham. I am also aware that others have said that public ownership does leave room for recognising customary rights. That was said by the Leader of the Opposition.