Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:614;Page:10710] 
5.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: Why did the Crown’s Te Arawa lakes settlement offer include the provision that individuals and businesses that wish to build new structures on the lake bed will need to ask the permission of Te Arawa after settlement and is it envisaged that individuals and businesses will need to pay a fee to Te Arawa in order to receive permission to build new structures? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 The reason the Crown and Te Arawa agreed to this settlement offer was that we believe in settling historical grievances with fairness and finality. On the second question of whether Te Arawa will charge fees to build new structures that are attached to the lake beds that would be a matter of negotiation between the parties involved. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is it now the case that the Government’s general policy on seabed and foreshore includes provisions like those in the Te Arawa proposal requiring consultation with iwi prior to any development or enterprise being established presumably in return for a fee; if not can the Minister explain the reasons for any differences? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The proposals relating to foreshore and seabed will be announced tomorrow. In terms of the Te Arawa settlement the difference is that it is a settlement of a historical grievance whereas the foreshore and seabed issue relates to common law customary rights recognition. 
Mita Ririnui 
: What do the provisions of the Te Arawa settlement say about existing structures and public access? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Owners of existing structures such as jetties boatsheds and permanent moorings in or anchored on the lake beds will have the same rights and obligations with regard to those structures as they have now. In relation to public access the public will enjoy the same rights of access as they have done in the past. 
Metiria Turei 
: Will the Government use the process in the Te Arawa lakes settlement for the foreshore and seabed issue given its potential as a model of coexistence between Maori developmental rights the continued exercise of kaitiakitanga secure non-saleable title and guaranteed public access? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Although the origin of the Te Arawa settlement as I said was based in a grievance—breach of the treaty—and foreshore and seabed comes from common law customary rights it is true to say that this Government’s general approach to all grievances of this sort and all issues of this nature is a win-win situation to accommodate the interests of all. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Why does the Minister say the reason for this is that it is a historical grievance when in 1922 a full and final settlement was negotiated and legislated for with an annual payment made for the last 80 years; why now is the Government revisiting this issue at variance to its foreshore and seabed policy of public domain? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The 1922 agreement was not a treaty settlement over the lakes; nor was that agreement confined to the lakes itself. It was an out-of-court agreement concerning ownership litigation and other unresolved grievances. So I think it is a misrepresentation to say that in fact it was a full and final settlement for a treaty breach whereas that is what is being conducted here. The member might find it interesting to read the history of it. It is quite interesting. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why is the Government trying to draw a distinction between treaty claims such as those involving lakes and common law cases from which the foreshore and seabed issues arose? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Because there is a legal difference. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could the Minister tell this House and the country what the difference is for Maori between a lake bed and a foreshore or seabed that adjoins the land on the coast of this country; what is this great difference about which she speaks? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The Crown has been involved on these issues not with Maori generally but with iwi hapu and whanau and whether it be a treaty settlement or what is the nature of the common law customary rights depends upon whom one is talking to not upon having some generalised global term. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like you to consider how that could possibly be an answer or a reply to Mr Winston Peters’ question which was: what is the difference? We had a nice dissertation about whanau iwi and hapu but not once did I hear an explanation of the difference. The Minister sneered at the question before explaining that there was a difference and now she cannot explain what it was. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I thought the Minister did address that question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked Margaret Wilson what this difference was that she had referred to in a prior question but in particular I asked what the difference was for Maori whether they be Ngapuhi Ngati Porou or Te Arawa. When it comes to these sorts of resources what is the difference that she perceives is being addressed here? She should answer that question because it goes to the nub of the difference between the Te Arawa settlement and the settlement that she plans surely to announce tomorrow. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Having heard the member I invite the Minister to comment. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: It is not for me to talk on behalf of Te Arawa or any other iwi hapu or whanau that is involved with the Crown. The point I was trying to make is that one cannot make those generalised statements. That is the basis upon which the Crown deals with Maori in the context of whom they represent. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I could not agree more with the Minister in her answer except that she is not being asked to speak for Maori—she is being asked to speak for the Crown. Now can we have an answer on behalf of the Crown? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I think the Minister did address the question specifically in her second answer. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have raised two points of order on this question. You relented and said that the Minister had not pointed out the difference. She then stood up gave a babble of words and still did not identify the difference when you asked her to. It seems to me that if we raise a point of order that you accept the Minister answering the question is honour-bound and obligated to address what the difference is. Or are we to conclude that in fact there is no difference or if there is that this Minister is unable to give it—and you Mr Speaker having seen that she is unable to give it are happy to go along with that notwithstanding your instructions. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The Minister was asked what from the perspective of Maori is the difference. She replied that she does not speak on behalf of Maori on this matter. She has no ministerial responsibility to do so. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The fact that members are not satisfied with a Minister’s answer is not a point of order. Ministers choose to address questions in their own way.