English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8742] 
2.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Do any of the four fundamental principles for proposed foreshore and seabed legislation as expressed in the Government proposals for consultation published by her department include any references to co-management kaitiakitanga and guardianship; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The Government proposal on the principle of protection outlines the current protection of customary rights including reference to kaitiakitanga and guardianship as provided for in the Resource Management Act passed by National in 1991. This is a useful precedent as are other Acts and the customary-fishing regulations passed under National Governments. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is it that in the Government’s popular publication there is no reference to these concepts and why is it that when she talks on mainstream media she talks about absolute non-negotiable bottom lines but when she goes to the marae she talks about compromise and negotiation? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The first point to make is that one does not get 36 pages of a discussion document into a pamphlet. The second point is I have not of course been at the hui. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Prime Minister why she has changed her view as expressed by three different and one assumes independent journalists of the press gallery on 24 June—in the  
New Zealand Herald  
in the first instance in the  
Dominion Post  
in the second instance and in the  
Nelson Mail 
 in a New Zealand Press Association report in the third instance—all of which have the following statements: “But Prime Minister Helen Clark said ownership of the seabed and foreshore had long been considered to lie with the Crown and legislation would clarify that.”? That is the import of three independent journalists’ view of what she said on 23 June; why is she ducking and diving and changing her mind now? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What I have consistently said is that clarifying legislation would be required and it will be. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Where is the Government’s moral mandate for so-called clarifying legislation to have 15 percent of the population co-managing and having guardianship of our beaches; and how does she know that when she not only has not fronted up—as she has just told us—to any of the hui but has not been prepared to front up at any public meeting with any New Zealander on this issue? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Presumably the same mandate that led a previous Government to put such concepts into various pieces of legislation and regulations. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not want to warn people again. I have called Metiria Turei and she alone has the floor. 
Metiria Turei 
: Given Michael Cullen’s statement at Omahu Marae that the Government’s bottom line is no further private exclusive title and that no Maori at the hui has sought private exclusive title will the Government now engage with Maori in a negotiation based on this common ground? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am advised by the Deputy Prime Minister that the assertion about what Maori have not asserted is simply not true. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Can I ask the Prime Minister in the light of her response to my supplementary question yesterday that she agreed with the assertion that all New Zealanders of whatever origin indivisibly and equally owned a share of the foreshore and seabed whether at the hui that Ministers have been able to get into without having their security compromised or threatened or being otherwise abused there have been concepts of ownership advanced that would be consistent with that position? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I understand there have been some submissions that have indeed supported the Government proposal that these areas should in effect be a commons. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the Crown will exercise the principle of regulation on its own or in partnership with iwi? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I have said there are rather interesting precedents for co-management. I could for example cite the precedent of the mataitai reserves which provide under 1998 fisheries regulations for hands-on management by kaitiaki of all non-commercial fishing activity in traditional fishing grounds. That was in 1998 under a previous Government—maybe it was all right then and is not now. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Prime Minister denying that on 23 June she and Margaret Wilson told a press conference the following as reported by David McLoughlin of the  
Dominion Post  
the next day: “Ms Wilson and Prime Minister Helen Clark said the planned law change would clarify that the Crown and thus the public in general owned beach foreshores and the seabed.” or as reported by none other than Audrey Young on the same day: “But Prime Minister Helen Clark said ownership of the seabed and foreshore had long been considered to lie with the Crown and legislation would clarify that.”? Why is she now trying to do a doublespeak on that and say she did not say it in the first place—that ownership belonged to the Crown? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am very aware of what I said on 23 June at a press conference which was that clarifying legislation would be required. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given that the Prime Minister is willing to confirm the second part of the statement which is that clarifying legislation would be introduced why can she not confirm the first part of the statement that ownership had long been considered to lie with the Crown—or is she being selective? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That statement was made some days earlier and it is not correct to link the two as being made on one day. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I take it from the Prime Minister that every journalist there—all of whom repeated the words that the foreshore and seabed issue would be clarified to the extent that ownership would lie with the Crown—got it wrong that they are all telling a tissue of lies and that she alone is telling the truth? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What I can say is that on 23 June I was very clear that clarifying legislation would be required. I did not say what it would be. I look forward to that member clarifying his party’s position that there should be Crown ownership so that he does not con Maori again like he did in 1996. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Apparently we have a most interesting circumstance here. The Prime Minister has no idea of what her policy is or of what she said but she has certainty about ours. Well I can understand that: ours makes sense. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is the House to understand that the moral authority for this Government’s legislation on the beaches is that in 1998 the National Government introduced legislation into the House; if so why is the Prime Minister not prepared to front up at hui and public meetings and tell us all that the reason the Labour Government is passing something is that National did it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That would never be a good reason. The basis for concepts like this being put into law and regulations under both the present and previous Governments is that Governments in this day and age endeavour to see how the treaty can be made relevant. That is why these concepts are adopted. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it not a fact that on 23 June the view of herself and her Government was that legislation clarifying that foreshore and seabed ownership would lie with the Crown—that that was a statement she made—but then she got hit with a revolt from the seven dwarfs and she changed her mind in the next few months? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not having that comment made. If that is a reference to any member of Parliament the member will withdraw and apologise for it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How could you assume that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want the member’s assurance that he was not referring to a member of Parliament. Will he give that assurance now? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I will tell you what I will do. I will repeat the words “seven dwarfs” for as long as I like but until I give a name to them you will not make an imputation about it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to know whether that is a reference to any member of Parliament. [ 
Interruption 
] The member will give me that answer or he will be leaving the Chamber. I want to know whether that was a reference to any member of Parliament. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: You are not going to tell me what I am thinking—all right? I will use that phrase and so will I expect any self-respecting member of Parliament— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am going to have an answer. The member will be seated or he will be leaving. I want an assurance that that was not a reference to any member of Parliament. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: You are not going to get it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member leaves the Chamber. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Here we go again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member leaves the Chamber. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given the Prime Minister’s answer before that the two parts of the published statement were made on different days can she confirm to the House whether she ever said—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry Mr English. You are perfectly entitled to have your question asked in silence and I now ask you to start again. 
Hon Bill English 
: It is not another one of their walk-ins is it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not know. The member will just ask the question. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm whether she ever made her reported comments that ownership of the seabed and foreshore had long been assumed to lie with the Crown? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: On the Friday before that press conference I did indeed make that statement and I believe I was justified in making it given one’s recollection that they were deemed to be vested in the Crown. That was another matter from what was said on 23 June at the press conference which was when I said that clarifying legislation would be required and I was non-specific about what. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the fact that the Rt Hon Winston Peters is set down to ask question No. 4 and I ask that he be allowed to return to the House to ask that question and a number of supplementary questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No because the member has been asked to leave. It is bad luck on this occasion. He cannot do that. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect I draw your attention to the fact that it was not too long ago that another member—I think it was the Hon Dr Nick Smith—was asked to leave by your good self and you saw fit to allow the member back in to ask his questions then leave again afterwards. I ask you to show the same consideration to the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: My recollection is that the incident with Dr Smith did not involve a direct challenge to the authority of the Chair as Mr Peters’ behaviour did and I am sure that was a factor you have taken into account. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is exactly the point I would make. In fact I wanted to be generous on that occasion because Dr Smith did not challenge the Chair. Mr Peters did and he stays out for this question time. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can you tell me where in the Standing Orders is categorised the degree to which a member has to leave for this type of punishment or that type of punishment? Consistency should be shown to all members of Parliament asked to leave the Chamber. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes. Any disorderly behaviour as I see it and when the member refused to accede to my request that was disorderly. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is probably valuable for the House to get a better steer on exactly what your rulings are surrounding Mr Peters’ removal from the House. It seems to me that the issue that Mr Peters was advancing was a reasonable one. The Speaker should not assume to know the thoughts of a member by putting some imputation upon the words that member has spoken. I am now a little unclear as to what the ruling that will obviously now appear in  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 will say on this matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Quite simply it is this. I asked whether the member was referring to a member of the House. I am perfectly entitled to do that. It has been done on occasion by every Speaker who has ever sat in this Chair because comments can be ironic or epithetical. If I had had an assurance that it was not a reference to a member of the House then that would have been the end of the matter. The member refused to give that assurance. He disobeyed an instruction and he was asked to leave. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to have it clear that a member has to be very careful how he or she refers to another member that one cannot use the word “dwarf” to refer to another member and that somehow the word “dwarf” is now out of order and you are ruling on our freedom of speech in that regard. I believe that the use of the word “dwarf” is quite appropriate in a parliamentary sense. Some of us might be giants and some of us might be dwarfs. It all varies. Some of us might be bald and some of us might not be. Are you now ruling that the word “dwarf” is not acceptable in the New Zealand Parliament to describe another member? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I ruled that out because the member—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] If that member continues to interject he should be removed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He will be if I find out who it was. 
Hon Members 
: It was David Cunliffe! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to ask the member whether he was interjecting when the point of order was being discussed. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Yes I was Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Right leave the Chamber. 
Hon David Cunliffe withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: My point of order is that under Standing Order 365(1)(b) questions should not contain arguments inferences imputations epithets ironical expressions and the like so the question was actually out of order under that matter. I think it might assist Mr Peters to know that all he needed to do was actually withdraw that statement. You have not actually ruled that the colourful expression “the seven dwarfs” is unparliamentary. That is another matter for general debate. All you have said is that it is not appropriate in a question—and it most certainly is not. We all know that it actually is a reference to members because in previous statements that we have heard he has said so. I suggest that if Mr Peters and his whips want to talk to you what they ought to do is to arrange for Mr Peters to come back and withdraw and apologise for those remarks—if they want him to participate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a very good thought but I gave the member a number of chances to do that. I think he defied the Chair and that is the reason he was asked to leave. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect you have not ruled on the matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I have. 
Dail Jones 
: Is “dwarf” now out of order? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If it refers in an ironic or an epithetical way to any member of this House of course it is. There are a large number of words that are out of order as far as describing members is concerned. If the member reads the Standing Orders he will see that members are to be described as members as honourable members or by their rank or office.