Franks Stephen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Franks Stephen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8753] 
8.  
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: Were there any Maori Land Court decisions about seabed and foreshore away from the Marlborough Sounds awaiting the outcome of the Marlborough Sounds appeal; if so will the Crown now stop the claimants getting titles to such areas? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 There are no Maori Land Court decisions awaiting the outcome of the Marlborough Sounds appeal. There are applications about the seabed and foreshore in addition to the Marlborough Sounds application that are awaiting a hearing. With regard to the last question the Crown will not prevent any applications from being filed. 
Stephen Franks 
: Can the Associate Minister confirm that a large part of the bed of Ohiwa Harbour in the Bay of Plenty was made into Maori freehold land by order of the Maori Land Court on 21 September 1999; and although that order was partly reversed 7 months later will the Crown now try to stop the Maori Land Court from going ahead when it is asked to do so to turn into freehold land a huge area of Ohiwa Harbour and its foreshore—as the court plainly intended in September 1999? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I wish the member had been more specific in his original question so that I could have been better briefed on the matter. I say to the member that I have no specific advice on the matter and I would be very reluctant to give an answer without a considerable amount of research which I will undertake to do and to give the member an answer later. 
Tim Barnett 
: Is it the Government’s policy that the Maori Land Court when deciding applications about seabed and foreshore currently before it will be able to grant only interests and rights that fall short of a fee simple title and do ensure continued public access? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Yes. As set out in the Government’s proposal for consultation the Government intends that all applications about the foreshore and seabed regardless of when they are made will be subject to the regime the Government is putting in place for the Maori Land Court. The cornerstone of that regime is that there will be no fee simple title and continuation of public access will be guaranteed. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why is the Government planning for the Maori Land Court to have the role of deciding on claims in the future including to reject unjustified claims when that court has already made its view plain at Ohiwa; when the lawyers for the Ohiwa claimants who resisted the correction of the first order were Joe Williams and Layne Harvey who are now both judges of the court; when all judges of that court are also members of the Waitangi Tribunal— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question is very long. I ask the member to please come to the question. 
Stephen Franks 
: —which is openly partisan on this issue; and when that court does not— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question is far too long. Is the member just about finished? 
Stephen Franks 
: Just about yes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Right. He is to come to an end quickly. 
Stephen Franks 
: —when that court does not usually take evidence on oath or pursue perjury and accepts tales and documents that would not be acceptable in any other court? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Firstly it is lamentable that the member has made such assertions about members of the judiciary. Secondly the member obviously has not been listening in the previous few weeks. The Government has said over and over again that it will be passing legislation to clarify these matters. In the light of that clarification the role of the Maori Land Court will be very very clear. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. On a number of occasions you have reminded the House about the problems involved when members who sit on cross benches directly opposite each other choose to interject on each other. You have asked and requested members to respect those problems and to be silent. My second point is that you have consistently reminded the House in general that questions will be left free to be asked in silence. Throughout the entire asking of that question by Mr Stephen Franks Mr Mark Peck consistently interjected—not once not twice but three times. Everybody sat here and heard him yet he remains in the Chamber. I ask for your consistency Mr Speaker. 
Mark Peck 
: I think there comes a point when attacking the judiciary in this House has to be challenged and I make no apologies for doing that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Unfortunately the member will now have to leave the Chamber however. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is not appropriate for a member of Parliament who has been asked to leave to put out a threat saying: “I haven’t finished with you.” as he is leaving. That comment in the first person is a clear a reference to you Mr Speaker and I think the member should be asked to withdraw and apologise for that statement. 
Mark Peck 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is also not appropriate for members of the ACT party to chip the member as he is leaving the Chamber at your instruction so perhaps there should be some apologies from them as well. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. Mr Peck please leave. 
Mark Peck withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Just a minute; I am dealing with one matter first. Regarding the matter raised by Mr Gosche I declare that we now move on to the next question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. While Mr Gosche was raising that point of order Mr Heatley interjected extremely loudly from the back bench opposite. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He did and he will leave too. 
Phil Heatley withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise with you the issue about where you are going to draw the line on this. Mr Peck left the Chamber as you requested then turned and walked straight back in. So Mr Peck who had been asked to leave made a comment as he was leaving which he should not have done went and sat somewhere else withdrew and apologised walked out then walked back in. Then a member said to another member that he should get out and the punishment for saying that—he had to leave the Chamber too—is quite frankly ridiculous. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not need any assistance on this matter at all. I judge when people are going to be allowed back in and that is the severity of the punishment I dictate. I have observed what happened. I observed that Mr Peck was asked to withdraw and apologise which he did but I also observed that he then did do something that was excessive and he of course will have longer out than other people will have out.