Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:10867] 
4.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: How does she reconcile her statement that the Government’s policy proposal for the foreshore and seabed was about “acting in the best interests of all New Zealanders” with the statement made by the Solicitor-General at a Waitangi Tribunal hearing on the policy that it “does accord real rights to those who hold customary titles and customary rights. They are not with respect simply in the position of any other person.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Easily. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Surely you are not going to accept that answer from the Prime Minister as being consistent with the public good. It leads us to believe there are some aspects of the answer that she does not want to give the House. Although you cannot direct how a question is answered you do frequently ask Ministers to return to the subject of the question or perhaps to elaborate when the House has not had as satisfactory an answer as possible. A one-word answer to a question relating to a very significant Government policy does seem somewhat trite. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to quote Speaker’s ruling 145/4: “If some information can be given in addition to the bare facts asked for in a question information which would supplement the reason for the answer giving such information would comply with the spirit of question time.” I think the Prime Minister should add a little to her answer. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I said “easily” because it is in the best interests of all New Zealanders to preserve both the general public’s right of access to and enjoyment of these areas and the State’s sovereign right to regulate with the recognition of Maori ancestral connection and legitimate customary rights. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Noting the Prime Minister’s comments earlier this week that there was no difference between the Solicitor-General’s statement to the tribunal and her own position does she agree with the Solicitor-General’s statement that the proposed policy gives power to customary rights holders including in some circumstances a veto over the proposed activities of others; if so how is that in the best interests of all New Zealanders? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member represents a party that puts a lot of store on property rights. A customary right is a property right and is expected to be respected. It may be in the member’s interest to blur the distinction being made between customary title which gives rights of participation and customary rights which are property rights. I think it is important that the two are clearly distinguished here and now. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with Dr Brash that Maori should be treated just as any other person is or does she accept that the treaty accords tangata whenua a right to be involved in decisions about their ancestral land? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I agree that the Treaty of Waitangi is the founding document for New Zealand and that it is a symbol of unity trust and partnership between Maori and the Crown—so did the National Government in 1996 when it put it on the Government website. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Prime Minister received any reports from Dr Brash or any other National Party person seeking to abolish the Maori Land Court a court that follows different laws from those for the rest of our country? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question could be answered in relation to the Maori Land Court as she could be responsible in that area. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No I have not received any such request from that particular member which only suggests as I think the question implies that his campaign is somewhat selective. 
Stephen Franks 
: Does a view that Maori are not “simply in the position of any other person” before the law in relation to seashore explain her view expressed on Radio New Zealand on 2 February that “any attempt to end the Maori Television Service would land the Government back in court” and are there any other areas where she thinks the judges can overturn laws passed by the elected representatives of the people? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member may not be aware that there is a long history of legal action and court decisions that preceded attempts by this Government and the previous Government to establish Maori television. The previous Government attempted in good faith to do it earlier in the 1990s. That ran into trouble and on the eve of the election in 1999 it made another offer and in fact signed a binding contract. This Government came into office with essentially that binding contract to proceed with Maori television over its head. But what preceded all of that were court decisions stating that the language of Maori was a taonga and that the Government had a duty to promote it and through the medium of broadcasting. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister made no attempt to answer the question. The question was very simple: are there any other areas of law where she believes that unelected judges can overturn law passed by the elected representatives of the people? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On this occasion I think the Prime Minister did address the question. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: In the event that the Government does not secure a parliamentary majority for its proposals on the foreshore and seabed issue is it not a fact that the status quo that will be returned to is not one where as she said in her original answer a reasonable balance is struck between the interests of various New Zealanders but the position that was arrived at last June or July where the Maori Land Court will be able to entertain applications for exclusive title? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That has been precisely the Government’s concern from the outset. Were the Maori Land Court to find that an area was to have the status of customary land that is exclusive possession and that is what we cannot agree to over these areas. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the law under which customary rights exist is the common law that we are all equally subject to that common law and that it derives from English legal tradition? 
Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That question is objectionable because it calls for a legal opinion. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It could conceivably call for a legal opinion but I will allow the Prime Minister to comment on it. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is certainly my understanding that it is exactly the English common law that we are talking about here. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the Solicitor-General’s statement that “The customary right holders interests become paramount.” when existing resource consents come to an end and in the light of that statement what advice does she give to the holders of existing consents that become subject to a claim for customary right or customary title? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member endeavours to obscure and blur the two concepts again. Customary title is a recognition of ancestral connection which then obliges planning authorities to ensure that those with that ancestral connection can participate effectively in processes. A customary right annotated on a title is a property right which will be respected. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If a person is of half-Maori and half-Scots or half-European extraction which part will hold the customary right and which part will observe it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I imagine I can infer that the member is talking about himself but he comes from a proud people in Northland the Ngati Wai who have continued to live in that area for many hundreds of years where they may have continued to exercise a customary right. They may well wish to go through the procedures established through the Government’s statutory framework for these areas to have that right recognised and that would be a right that would then be upheld. 
Murray Smith 
: Given the Prime Minister’s last answer does the Prime Minister agree that the Solicitor-General’s statement does not mean that individual Maori New Zealanders will receive special rights from the Government’s foreshore and seabed proposals but rather that Maori communities particularly hapu that have historical connections to part of New Zealand’s coastline will have those recognised and that to state that individual Maori New Zealanders will somehow have more rights than the rest of us is disingenuous and plainly divisive? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes. I agree with that judgment entirely. It is not about individuals. It is about groups of people. It is about communities who over many hundreds of years had a connection with these places and in some places and in some cases have continued to exercise a customary right to this day.