Garrett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Garrett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 21 July 2010. Volume:665;Page:12517. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
1. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Further to the Prime Minister’s answer to oral question No. 3 yesterday what are “the concerns that New Zealanders had about solely having Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed” and how does the Government’s proposal to legislate for iwi ownership of the foreshore and seabed alleviate these concerns? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 Many concerns have been raised—for example that the Foreshore and Seabed Act violates property rights the rule of law citizens’ right to go to the courts for justice and the principle of having one law for all. These were the concerns raised by among others the then ACT Party leader Richard Prebble in 2004 when his party opposed the current legislation. Mr Prebble also prophesied that the Act would do great and lasting damage to racial harmony. The Government’s proposal protects property rights and removes the discriminatory elements of the current Act. 
David Garrett 
: Will the proposed legislation weaken the test in section 50 of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 which requires in order for customary title to be granted uses or practices to have been carried on since 1840 that are integral to tikanga Maori; if so in what way will the test for customary title be weakened? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The overarching test will be exclusive use and occupation without substantial interruption. The test has some emphasis on tikanga Maori. I do not believe that the overall changes will be very great at all. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Does the loss of sole Crown title of the foreshore and seabed in any way reduce the rights of any New Zealander in relation to the foreshore and seabed? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No. 
David Garrett 
: Does he agree with the Prime Minister when he said yesterday in relation to the foreshore and seabed: “We are not giving it away.”; if so what will iwi have to pay for the 10 percent of the foreshore and seabed that he estimates they will get? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Yes. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: If the loss of sole Crown title of the foreshore and seabed is not going to reduce the rights of any New Zealander in relation to it why is the National Government doing it? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I gave the answer to that in my answer to the primary question. It is because there was substantial concern among a significant section of the public that the 2004 Act is discriminatory. It removed the right of access to justice for a significant percentage of New Zealanders and it removed uninvestigated customary title and those matters needed to be addressed. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Does the Minister think that New Zealanders are more concerned about Crown ownership of the entire Northland coastline from Maunganui to the North Cape and down to Hokianga or more concerned about Professor Margaret Mutu’s statement: “we own it”? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I think that most New Zealanders are very concerned about ensuring that a significant percentage of the New Zealand population has access to justice and has the right to at least be able to try to prove their case in court. That is what this legislation change is all about. 
Hon John Key 
: Did Michael Cullen’s submission on behalf of the Labour Party contain most of the changes recommended under the proposed new foreshore and seabed legislation? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure whether the Minister has responsibility for Michael Cullen’s submission. The Prime Minister may reword his question. 
Hon John Key 
: What reports has the Attorney-General received about Labour’s submission by Michael Cullen about proposed changes to the foreshore and seabed legislation and do they look a lot like the changes that the National Government is proposing? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I have received very very positive reports indeed. Dr Cullen’s contribution was extremely positive and many of the proposals that he suggested have indeed been incorporated because they go a long way towards alleviating the problems caused by the Stalinist Act introduced by the previous Labour Government. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to the Hon Trevor Mallard and the Hon David Cunliffe that I have been on my feet for some time now. OK a little bit of noise is fair enough but it cannot go on indefinitely. When I get to my feet it will stop and members will not call other members hypocrites.