Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1831] 
5.  
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Did Te Puni Kokiri provide advice on the membership of the Foreshore and Seabed Act review group; if so did that advice address what should be done if the review group recommended no changes were needed? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. Yes Te Puni Kokiri did provide advice on the membership of the review panel prior to the decision being taken to Cabinet; but no Te Puni Kokiri did not provide advice on what should be done if the review panel recommended that no changes were needed. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise quite a serious point of order at this point. The question I initially submitted to the Clerk’s Office asked whether the Minister stood by his statement that in the event of the Foreshore and Seabed Act review group not recommending major changes they should be sacked and replaced and I used the exact words the Minister used. That question was declined on the grounds that the Minister had no ministerial responsibility for the Foreshore and Seabed Act review group. We have now been informed that Te Puni Kokiri provided advice on the membership of that group. I now seek your ruling Mr Speaker on whether I can ask the original question. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Just because a Minister made recommendations does not make him responsible for the bill. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I am happy to answer the disallowed question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: My dilemma is that just because members want to answer questions does not mean that under the Standing Orders they are able to. It is an interesting point that the Hon Dr Michael Cullen has raised but the point made by the Hon Rodney Hide is relevant. Ministers receive advice from a range of departments but that does not make them responsible for certain areas. I think we have to abide by the ruling that the Minister of Maori Affairs is not responsible for the issues raised in the question the member originally lodged. I am aware of that difference. I would invite the member to continue to ask supplementary questions relating to the question that has been approved. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It will however have a reasonably different interpretation from this point on in that case. Did the Minister discuss with the Attorney-General the membership of the Foreshore and Seabed Act review group; if so did he support or oppose the inclusion of anyone with expertise in recreational or other access issues? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: The Maori Party had discussions with the National Government in order to set up the agreement and the process. As Minister of Maori Affairs I had discussions with the Attorney-General about possible candidates for the review group. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What reports is he aware of that suggest that a review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act is necessary? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I have received a report that was presented to the previous Government by the United Nations special rapporteur Professor Rodolfo Stavenhagen. The report recommends: “The Foreshore and Seabed Act should be repealed or amended by Parliament and the Crown should engage in treaty settlement negotiation with Maori that would recognize the inherent rights of Maori in the foreshore and seabed …”. Unlike the previous Government this Government respects international expert advice and listens. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: In the light of that last quotation will the Minister therefore explain why he has continually opposed the settlement with Ngati Porou which in fact gives far more than would have been possible under an application to the Maori Land Court following the Ngati Apa decision? 
Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That supplementary question would hardly qualify as relating to the first question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Supplementary questions can arise out of the answer to the principal question and to supplementary questions. It is the Minister who chose to quote the special rapporteur’s report. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Dr Sharples said that this Government does pay attention to international agencies that have a view on this sort of thing. To say that that allows the questioner then to start waltzing off into what are basically negotiated arrangements between the Crown and an individual iwi group I think stretches it. The wider principle is the way in which this country chooses to deal with the issue of ownership around the foreshore and seabed and that is not related to any specific settlement that might be arrived at with one iwi. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: If that supplementary question is ruled out you should have ruled out peremptorily the actual question that was put to the Minister to elicit that answer—which is has he seen any reports about the need for a review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. I might say that it is completely in order because I take the view that the Minister of Maori Affairs has ministerial responsibility for all matters to do with Maori in his advocacy role as Minister of Maori Affairs. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank all honourable members because a very interesting point has been raised. I think the Hon Dr Michael Cullen though cannot go back and relitigate the original decision in respect of ministerial responsibility. The point raised by the Hon Tariana Turia is a very interesting one because the Hon Dr Pita Sharples was asked about a report and he did quote from a report and he said the Government listens. I do not believe therefore he has opened up new territory for questioning outside his responsibility. I think it is stretching the linkage between supplementary and primary questions to argue that simply to say that yes he had seen that report and the Government listens does that. It would be my ruling on the matter that he has not really opened up new territory. But I invite the Hon Dr Michael Cullen— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was going to say that the Minister did quote the report in some detail in that regard. The report incidentally did not call necessarily for repeal but possibly for amendment and called for the Crown to negotiate. My point in my supplementary question was the Crown did negotiate with Ngati Porou and Te Whanau-a-Apanui. Indeed a bill is before the House dealing with the outcome of one of those negotiations. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is raising good points of order on the matter. I hope he appreciates that it is a delicate issue given that it has already had to be dealt with as part of the question process in approving questions. I think though I have to continue to rule that just because the Minister refers to a report he is not saying that those are his views but that it was what the report said and he said that the Government listens. It is my view that that has not opened up new territory. However I invite the honourable member to ask a further supplementary question without it being deducted from his party’s allocation of questions. I accept absolutely that it is a fairly marginal call. I will not swear by the fact that I am 100 percent right on this but that is my ruling. I therefore invite the honourable member to ask another supplementary question without it coming off the allocation to Labour members. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: When will he as the Minister of Maori Affairs front up to explain to Maori that even if the Foreshore and Seabed Act is simply repealed it is most unlikely that the great majority of foreshore and seabed will pass from Crown ownership into customary title let alone freehold title? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: We have never concealed the possible results of what a review would do and it is not my right right now to talk about the review. It is in progress at this time. 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: What other reports has the Minister seen on support for the foreshore and seabed review? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I have seen reports quoting the Opposition spokesman the Hon David Parker saying that the Labour Party wants to be part of the discussion and to engage with the Crown in a constructive way. I have also seen reports of the Hon Shane Jones undermining the review panel then the Leader of the Opposition calling the review extremely divisive and saying that the review should not proceed. I can only assume that the Leader of the Opposition has a very different definition of “constructive engagement” from his colleague Mr Parker. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Does the Minister accept the Court of Appeal ruling in Ngati Apa which quite clearly implied that the gaining of customary title or freehold title would not be a widespread outcome of any applications to the Maori Land Court; if so why does he continue to hold out to Maori the prospect of full-scale ownership on a very broad basis of foreshore and seabed which is not a correct position of the likely outcome? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The questioner seeks from the Minister effectively a legal opinion. That is not appropriate in a question. It is not reasonable to ask that of a Minister. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I am not asking the Minister for a legal opinion. I asked him whether he accepts what the legal decision given by the Court of Appeal was as opposed to what he has been telling people for some considerable time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Again I acknowledge to members of the House that we are in very difficult territory and I do not pretend to have all the wisdom on this but to ask the Minister whether he agrees or disagrees with a ruling of the court is interesting territory to be getting into. Is it possible for the member to pursue his question in a different form? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I think I accept that the Minister cannot answer the question so perhaps I could ask a different supplementary question. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The problem is whether the member can ask the question; it is not whether the Minister can answer it. It is an unacceptable slur on the Minister for the member to stand in this House and somehow pretend that because he has got it wrong by not asking the correct question somehow it is a slight on the Minister’s ability. It is actually the member’s ability to ask the question that is in question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think that that is helpful. This is a difficult issue because the original question the honourable member put down was ruled out of order on grounds that are important. None the less I can understand how the member was concerned about his original question being ruled out. I am therefore trying to be helpful in accommodating the member to ask a reasonable question around the question that is on the Order Paper. I accept though that it gets tricky when the Minister brings in additional information but I ask the member to rephrase a further question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Does the Minister believe that in the event that the Foreshore and Seabed Act is simply repealed—so that the Ngati Apa decision stands in its entirety—there will be large-scale successful applications to the Maori Land Court transferring public foreshore and seabed into customary title and then into freehold title; if not how does he reconcile that view with the decision of the Court of Appeal? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I will not pre-empt the findings of the review panel. Unlike the previous Government I believe in due process and it will take place. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Has the Minister received any reports about the value of the review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act in enhancing the relationship between the Crown and Maori? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It seems to me the “protection racket” has to run both ways; how could that question be in order if some of the previous supplementary questions have been ruled out of order? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think I have to support the honourable member in this because although the Minister may be asked about reports he has received the reports must relate to his ministerial responsibility. The Minister has indicated that he is not responsible for the review; therefore I do uphold the point of order of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen and I invite him to ask a supplementary question if that is what he is seeking. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: How does the Minister reconcile his last answer to me about not prejudging the outcome of any court ruling with his frequent statements up and down the country that Maori “own” the foreshore and seabed and the Act stole it off them? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me make it clear: the Minister is not responsible as Minister for statements he may have made in his role as a member of the Maori Party. In inviting the Minister to answer I just make that clear because he would be in breach of the Standing Orders— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think we have to be very careful once a person has taken the oath as a Minister and also holds any other position whether that person can then decide that in any particular case that he was not speaking as a Minister but really as Dr Pita Sharples. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This issue has come up on many times and I do not particularly want to cite all of the Speakers’ rulings that are here. But I wanted to alert the Minister to that because he would be getting out of order were he to comment on statements he might have made as co-leader of the Maori Party. He is responsible only for what he says as Minister and he can be questioned only on that directly in the House. There are plenty of Speakers’ rulings I can cite for the honourable member if he so wishes. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Surely then that would rule that question out? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Only the last part of it. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Well the whole question related to comments that Dr Sharples has made as co-leader of the Maori Party. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I recollect correctly the last part of the question talked about reconciliation with comments the member had made. The first part of the question I believe was in order. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can the House have evidence of this information that Dr Cullen is presenting to it or could he be misleading the House? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no—that is not helpful. Look this is a tricky question and I invite the member to repeat that first part of the question and to add no more because it will be ruled out of order if he does. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: If I can remember what I said—does the Minister in his ministerial capacity stand by the statements he has made on many occasions that the foreshore and seabed is “owned” by Maori and the Act stole it off them? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That question cannot stand. Helen Clark established in Parliament the principle of separating her role as Prime Minister from her role as leader of the Labour Party. All Dr Sharples has been saying around the country are comments made as co-leader of the Maori Party. Certainly he would not resile from those comments because they are Maori Party policy and have been for a very long time. Indeed they are the sort of sentiment that was the genesis of the Maori Party itself. That question cannot stand as a reasonable question to the Minister of Maori Affairs.  
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Indeed Helen Clark did make that distinction when she was being asked questions about the finances and other operations of the Labour Party. This is a question about an issue of public policy about statements made and actions taken by the Government and about legislation that the Government is reviewing. The Minister cannot hide all the time as simply being co-leader of the Maori Party. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: It is important to understand that the Minister is free to make statements as co-leader of the Maori Party. That does not impinge on his activities as a Minister. Further I think the Minister has made it very clear that notwithstanding his own strongly held personal views and those of his party on this matter these are matters under consideration by review and he does not want to make a ministerial statement about them until such time as the review is completed. That is perfectly reasonable. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank honourable members. This is a very interesting area of questioning and therefore I have allowed the House to take some time to sort it out. I accept that judgments in this area are by nature difficult and I would ask members to respect that. It would be my judgment in this—and as I look at former Speakers’ rulings—that the Minister could be questioned on statements he might have made that impinged on his responsibilities as Minister. The dilemma in this particular case is that we have already established that some of these issues are not his responsibility as Minister. This particular review is not his responsibility as Minister; therefore he cannot be questioned on comments that relate to that matter because they are not his responsibility as Minister. I think that is the clear demarcation on this issue. 
On that basis I must say to the honourable member that when he repeated his question it was not the same as the one he had first asked and I must rule out that question. I allowed him two further goes. I think we have probably given the honourable member a fair go on this question. I do have to rule out that question though. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have two further points of order. The first is that it seems to me that we are in significant difficulty around such Ministers as those of Maori Affairs Pacific Island Affairs Youth Affairs and Women’s Affairs—the so-called population ministries. The understanding has always been that the Ministers in that case can be questioned on a wide range of issues of policy relevant to those particular populations. The Minister of Maori Affairs is responsible for input into Government decision-making on all matters of specific relevance to Maori. It would be very hard to argue that the Foreshore and Seabed Act is not of particular relevance to Maori; it is of particular particular relevance to Maori. If therefore the Minister is able to hide and to argue in effect that he has no view as a Minister no position as a Minister or no responsibility as a Minister for matters relating to the Foreshore and Seabed Act then I think we are in an impossible position in the House. 
Mr Speaker once you have dealt with that I will raise a further point of order about a further version of the main question that was submitted earlier. It now seems to me that in the light of your rulings it should have been allowed. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I think the difficulty here may well be where this question was directed in the first place today. During the successive terms of the last Labour Government questions that related to the Foreshore and Seabed Act were routinely transferred away from the Hon Parekura Horomia to the Hon Dr Michael Cullen who answered them as Attorney-General on the basis that it was his particular area of responsibility. At that time absolutely no consideration was given by the Labour Government to those wider considerations that should rightly have fallen then to the Minister of Maori Affairs. 
Leaving that history aside and perhaps not wanting to point to it as a precedent the clear demarcation in this case is that Dr Sharples has made statements that one would expect of political party leaders when talking to a constituency that either supports them or they are trying to gain support from. He has an entirely different function as Minister of Maori Affairs. If the questions were about his strict involvement with the review process as Minister of Maori Affairs then yes of course he would answer. But this question takes it well outside that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the points that the honourable members have made because I think they are very good and well considered points. The House I think has taken sufficient time on this matter today. Let me make this final point. I as Speaker am not involved in determining Ministers’ responsibility in respect of answering questions. It is an independent process conducted by the Clerk’s Office. The assessment was made that considering all the current Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings etc. the question had to be altered this morning on the basis of ministerial responsibility. I think that is where we have got to in ruling on these questions now that the Minister can be questioned only on comments that he has made that relate to or impinge on his ministerial responsibilities and he is not responsible. As the Hon Gerry Brownlee has pointed out there is nothing new about this because as the honourable member Dr Cullen well knows he himself answered many questions on this area in the previous Government. I think the House should move on. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I still have two points of order. The first is to correct something that you just said because you will not be aware of the facts. The initial rejection of this question came from the Minister’s office and then the Clerk’s Office considered the matter. It was the Minister who declined to answer the question having of course led a party into this House formed solely on the basis of repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. 
My second point of order Mr Speaker is more important. When the original question was rejected a rephrased question was submitted and it asked the Minister whether he had seen comments by the co-leader of the Maori Party along the lines of dismissal of the review committee and asked whether he agreed with that. That question was also rejected. Mr Speaker you have informed the House that we have to accept that this Minister has a peculiarly bifurcated character. In anything that is controversial he is acting as the co-leader of the Maori Party; in anything that is safe he is the Minister of Maori Affairs and can be questioned about it in the House. Mr Speaker I put to you that if we are to have that position we must be able on a matter that is important to Maori and on which Te Puni Kokiri reports to the Minister to ask the Minister of Maori Affairs whether he agrees with comments or has seen any reported comments by the co-leader of the Maori Party. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House I think has heard quite enough on this matter. I think the member knows well that in the previous administration this issue cropped up and he knows how it was ruled on in the previous administration. I have ruled and let me make it very clear: I have ruled consistent with existing Speakers’ rulings and the Standing Orders that the Minister cannot be questioned on matters that are not his responsibility or on comments that he might make on matters that are not directly his responsibility. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Has he as Minister of Maori Affairs at any time while considering matters that he is responsible for advocating within the Government resiled from the position that the Foreshore and Seabed Act stole the foreshore and seabed from Maori? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That question challenges the ruling that you have not long given to the House. It works on the basis that by putting Dr Sharples in a position where he can answer only according to the public statements he has made as co-leader of the Maori Party he then makes those statements as Minister. That is unacceptable and it is an abuse of the House process. I might say and state again that this whole separation issue of responsibilities and authorities was not established in this House by anyone other than Helen Clark and for the Labour Party to be now trying to skirt round that is I think particularly annoying. But Mr Speaker that was a direct challenge to the way in which you have ruled on this particular matter and I think ruled quite appropriately that we move forward. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Mr Speaker I must correct the member again. Those matters in relation to the Rt Hon Helen Clark were raised in the context of Labour Party internal affairs for which she as Prime Minister had no responsibility. I am not asking the Minister of Maori Affairs anything to do with the internal affairs of the Maori Party. What I am asking about are his views and actions in regard to an issue that has been a central issue in Maoridom for a number of years. If the Minister chooses to hide behind Speakers’ rulings on this matter then I think the public will draw its own conclusion. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mr Speaker I very carefully worded my question having listened to your ruling. It was a very deliberate attempt to work around the ruling—a ruling that I think it is clear some of us do not agree with. It was an attempt to work around that ruling and my submission is that I worked around it enough for the question to be in order. 
Hon David Parker 
: When a Minister stands in this House he stands as part of Cabinet— 
Hon Members 
: Or she. 
Hon David Parker 
: He or she—in this case a “he”—stands as part of Cabinet and has ministerial responsibility on behalf of Cabinet to answer on behalf of the executive. A Minister outside Cabinet is asked really on behalf of the Government whether as a Minister in the Government he or she accepts that that is the Government policy in respect of propositions that are put to him or her. Those propositions can be statements that are in the press they can be statements from other politicians they can be statements from other members of his or her party or they can be statements of that very Minister when he or she was acting in a different capacity. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to examine the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings a little more carefully. Question time does not bring to bear those arguments that the member was just advancing; question time relates very specifically to Ministers’ individual responsibilities. Now I am going to have to rule on this because the House is wasting a lot time. 
Hon Dr Pita Sharples 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am in the process of ruling. The honourable member Trevor Mallard has framed a question in relation to the Minister’s responsibilities as Minister of Maori Affairs and I invite the Minister to answer only in that capacity—as Minister of Maori Affairs. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have just ruled. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Yes you have ruled but I just wish to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If this is a new point of order I call the Hon Gerry Brownlee. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Well it is a related point of order I must concede. Mr Speaker you will recall from the last Parliament that the New Zealand First Party had a policy that was designed to bring much younger New Zealanders into the adult jurisdiction as far as the courts were concerned. That was not Labour Party policy at the time. I recall Mr Peters being asked in this House how he as Minister of Foreign Affairs had dealt with the human rights issues around this matter when he was engaged in various negotiations and discussions internationally. At that time the Speaker ruled that there was a distinction between his role as a representative of the Government who advances Government policy and the position that he had as leader of the New Zealand First Party advancing New Zealand First policy. We have exactly that issue here today. It does not matter how much the Labour Party members might like to twist things round; this was a precedent established by them and their Labour Government. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the Hon Dr Pita Sharples. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. I have sat here and listened to attempts at asking me questions and you have ruled those questions out of order. While the member was asking those questions he impugned my integrity by saying that I am hiding that I had made statements as a Minister that belong to a party member that I was hiding that I did not want to answer the questions and that I had a relationship with Ngati Porou that was negative. All those sorts of things will now be published—they are out in public—and not one of them is true. I am sitting here while people criss-cross their rights and wrongs and my integrity in the public’s eye has gone down the tubes. Mr Speaker I ask that you now ask Dr Cullen to withdraw and apologise for doing that to my character in this House without providing any evidence whatsoever. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think we are getting—[ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. I allowed the honourable Minister to make that point of order even though strictly it was not a point of order because I felt he was expressing a legitimate concern about some of the language used in points of order—such as “hiding”. Because we were trying to sort out a difficult issue I did not come down on that language as hard as I should have and I personally apologise to the honourable Minister for not having prevented it. 
The House has spent a lot of time on this matter. I have ruled that the honourable member Trevor Mallard’s question can go to the Minister but he can answer it only in respect of his responsibilities as Minister of Maori Affairs. I invite the Minister to respond to that question in his capacity as Minister of Maori Affairs because that was the way that the question was framed. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have ruled and I invite the member to sit down. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It is a different point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet and the member will sit down. I have invited the Minister to answer that question and I ask him to do so. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I simply invite you to point out to the Minister that if he feels that he could answer those questions he could always have sought leave to answer them at the time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not believe that that was adding to the good order of the House. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: As the Minister with responsibility for take Maori I have always made statements on behalf of that portfolio with full integrity to the position. Any statements I might have made against the Foreshore and Seabed Act I have done as a co-leader of the Maori Party with passion and conviction in that capacity but in the capacity of Minister I have played it straight down the line.