Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time 
[Volume:610;Page:7432] 
6.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Courts 
: How many applications for foreshore and seabed have been lodged with the Maori Land Court at each of its seven registry offices since 19 June 2003 and what areas are covered by these applications? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Associate Minister for Courts) 
: 
 Since 19 June 2003 there have been 16 foreshore and seabed applications in the Maori Land Court. One of these was received in each of the Takitimu Waiariki and Tairawhiti registries. Two applications were received in each of the Waikato and Aotea registries and nine were received in the Te Taitokerau registry. It has not been possible unfortunately in the time available to compile a list of the areas covered in the applications but if the member requires this information then I am happy to provide it to him in response to a written question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that the Auckland Maori Land Court registrar has confirmed nine new applications for title covering the areas of North Cape Bay of Islands Hokianga Harbour Kaipara Harbour Waitemata Harbour Manukau Harbour Papamoa Beach Waihi Beach and the Hauraki Gulf does she stand by her press statement on the day following the Court of Appeal decision that stated it was a narrow technical decision that would have no practical effect; and if hundreds of thousands of hectares and hundreds of kilometres is minor and technical what does she think would be major? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The decision of the Court of Appeal was technical in the sense that it related to whether there was jurisdiction for the Maori Land Court to hear such matters. My understanding is that there were claims that had been lodged before that decision. They had been waiting to see whether there was jurisdiction for the court to hear it so in that sense yes it was a jurisdictional issue but not one of substance. 
Martin Gallagher 
: In order that we can be crystal-clear in terms of the law as it currently stands do Maori applicants have the right to have customary rights in relation to the foreshore and seabed determined by the Maori Land Court? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is seeking a legal opinion. There are Speakers’ rulings about that but the Minister may comment if she wishes. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes and that was the issue that was determined by the Court of Appeal judgment. That was the matter that was outstanding. 
Stephen Franks 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Government fears the agenda of the Maori Land Court hearing these claims; if not why not—when she appointed to that court activist Caren Wickliffe after she claimed that our Government institutions were not legitimate that Pakeha notions of property were not legitimate and that we need a national Maori body politic made up of iwi and hapu representatives to exercise real and substantive self-government and applauded a Fijian statement after the coup that said: “Without land you are not a Fijian. You should not exchange it you should not sell it and you cannot replace it.”? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: This Government does not fear the Maori Land Court or much else I would suggest. The Government has total confidence as I do in the Maori Land Court. I was not the Minister who was responsible for those appointments though I was consulted before they were made. In fact it is the Minister of Maori Affairs who makes those appointments. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the Minister’s answer to my initial question which asked about the areas concerned the Minister replied that she had not been able to acquire the information in time for questions today—which was reasonable—but said that if I wished to obtain that information I would need to obtain it by way of a written question. I suggest that a more appropriate way forward would be for the Minister to provide the information to me as soon as it is available so that I do not have to use up additional questions when the Government has not been able to answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is no restriction on the number of written questions a member can ask— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: There’s a timing issue— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister said a “written question”. I heard her reply. I would expect the Minister to give a prompt reply and she has just indicated that she will. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes I am happy to do that. It is just that it takes some time to get all the applications in the areas and to do the precise calculations. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting the statement that the Government would legislate to ensure that foreshore and seabed are owned by the Crown when will this House see the legislation to implement that Government policy? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The Government is working assiduously on this issue and will have an answer as soon as practicable. We hope that will happen not only in the fullness of time but early in the fullness of time. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister had any reports from her department or wherever outlining the ACT party leadership’s attitude or the National Party leadership’s attitude on Treaty of Waitangi issues such as this; and how does it accord with the 2003 expressed policy from the same sources? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is not responsible for the ACT party or the National Party and therefore the question is too wide. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could I just submit though that if she has received such a report from her department—it would be most unusual for a department not to submit it to a Minister—on the previous history of these events then it is within the ambit of her responsibility. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes. If she is asked: “Has she received a report on the policies?” she certainly can answer that question. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 128/6. The ruling was made by Deputy Speaker Gerard and states: “If a Minister is asked a question about a report or whether the Minister has received a report … The Minister in answering about the report cannot be hypothetical about what may or may not be the effects of another political party’s policy.” I would have thought that that referred to the exact question that was asked by Mr Peters. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. Mr Peters asked whether any reports had been received and that is a perfectly proper question to ask. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I have received no specific reports but in preparation for the answer to this question today I noted the excellent speech made by the Hon Dr Nick Smith during the second reading debate on the Ngai Tahu bill which I think was a model of how there was cross-party support on these matters. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is where we now run into some difficulty. We have difficulty—and this point was made a previous point of order—getting Ministers to comment on their own policy yet that Minister made a statement about previous National Party policy. She had already answered the question by saying yes she had received the report. That was all she was asked and that is all she needed to say. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is perfectly correct but I did not take it as an offensive comment in any way. The senior Opposition whip is technically correct. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Presumably it is legitimate to ask whether a Minister had received a report on Government policy as it has been applied in the past as it may differ from policy today. What is not I would have thought legitimate—and it may seem strange for me to raise this point—is to be asking for a report on Opposition policy because then that is a wide open invitation to breach the Standing Orders and the rulings in relation to what ministerial responsibility is. I would have thought that it really is a matter of whether it relates to previous actions of Governments or whether it is on current issues of party policy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes the member is perfectly correct.