Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:670;Page:16674] 
8. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Does the Government intend that the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill be passed without amendment? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 Whether the bill is passed without amendment will be determined by the House not the Minister although I would be very interested to know whether Labour will move any amendments. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why did the Government use its voting muscle to report the bill back early without any amendment and without even a half-hearted attempt to consider the submissions of the more than 4500 New Zealanders who went to the trouble of submitting— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Forgive my interrupting the honourable member but he should give some thought to the fact that the Minister is not responsible for the actions of a select committee. The select committee makes its decisions and the Minister cannot be questioned about the decisions of the select committee. I invite the member to reword his question. 
Hon David Parker 
: In fact I had not finished it. Why did the Government use its voting muscle to report the bill back early without any amendment and without even a half-hearted attempt to properly consider either the submissions of more than 4500 New Zealanders or a 500-page departmental report which committee members had not even read and was that because he had instructed them to do so? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Clearly the member did not listen to my caution. The member did not listen to what I said before. The Minister has no responsibility for the behaviour of the select committee. The member may want to ask the Minister whether he gave the select committee any instructions but we did not need all the rest of that question. I invite the member again—but this will be the last occasion—to repeat his question to get it in order. 
Hon David Parker 
: Did the Attorney-General the Prime Minister or any other member of Cabinet tell the members of the select committee to report the bill back pronto? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No one tells Mr Henare what to do. He is the chair of the select committee. The reality of the matter is this: the areas of dispute between the parties on this issue have been very clear from the time that Labour announced its fifth position on the bill. What is in the public interest now is that we debate those issues of principle. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why did the Attorney-General refuse to release to the Maori Affairs Committee the legal advice that the Government had received about the effect of the new threshold test for the establishment of a customary marine title; was that because it would show he has been saying one thing to the Maori Party and other things to the rest of New Zealand? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No the position is—and the member knows this from his own time in Government—that issues of waiver of privilege are for the Attorney-General to determine. The committee had the opportunity to obtain legal advice and I understand that Mr Parker declined— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No they didn’t! 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Well I do not know how Mr Mallard would know; he was not a committee member. The committee had the opportunity and did not do so. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou. What is the significance of the burden of proof clause in the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill whereby the Crown is required to prove that extinguishment of customary title had not occurred and what feedback has there been from iwi about this issue? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Clause 105 is a very important issue. It picks up what the Court of Appeal said in the Ngati Apa case: that the burden of extinguishment lies on the personal body that seeks to have it extinguished—in this case the Crown. So the Crown has the burden of extinguishment and the advice that I have received from iwi is that it is a just and proper thing to do. 
Hon David Parker 
: Did the Attorney-General the Prime Minister or any other Minister of the Government instruct Government members to block the select committee from obtaining its own legal advice as to the effect of the change to the threshold test for a customary marine title; and was it because the Maori Party is about to implode or does National just want to whack this measure through so that people will forget about it before the election? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The second part of the question is ridiculous. The Maori Party will not implode. Its members have been very staunch colleagues of this Government in dealing with Treaty settlements which is why our record is so much better than the previous Labour Government’s was. We have been working very well together on these important issues—issues that need to be addressed. Every party in this Parliament acknowledges that the 2004 legislation is a flop and we need a better model. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: What evidence has he been able to show the Prime Minister of widespread public support for the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill given that the Prime Minister said in March last year that if there was not widespread support for the proposed law the current law would remain in place? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Well every party in this Parliament recognises that the 2004 legislation has not worked and has to be repealed. The issues of principle are about how we go about constructing a replacement. Every party’s position in this Parliament is pretty clear on that issue so let us have the debate. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very specific. I asked the Attorney-General what evidence he had been able to show the Prime Minister of widespread public support. He mentioned nothing about the evidence that he has been able to show the Prime Minister of widespread public support for this bill. I ask the Attorney-General to answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept that the Minister did not answer exactly what the member was asking but he did explain why the Government is proceeding with the bill which appeared to be a little different from the previous information that was provided. But the member has a further supplementary question. If he was not particularly satisfied with that answer he can delve further. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yes the party does have a further supplementary question but we are still entitled to have our supplementary question answered. What you said in your response to me was that the Attorney-General did not answer the question exactly. With respect I say he did not answer the question at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will invite the member to repeat his question. If the member is contesting my ruling which I accept it had better be a very precise question. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: What evidence has he been able to show the Prime Minister of widespread public support for the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill given that the Prime Minister said in March last year that if there was not widespread support for the proposed law the current law would remain in place? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: As I said in the answer to the question the last time he asked it I refer to the position of the political parties that are the representatives of the public in this place. I can also refer to the evidence that came from the very long conversation that we have had on this issue since November 2008 about the widespread dissatisfaction with the 2004 legislation and the desirability of having legislation that restores the right of access to justice to Maori. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: Given that customary title-holders will have an absolute right of veto on any development proposed under the Resource Management Act what confidence can the people of New Zealand have that they will not be held to ransom? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Iwi or any applicant group that obtains customary title will have certain rights in accordance with what one would expect of a property holder or someone who holds a title. That is a perfectly reasonable result when one bears in mind that we are dealing with respect for property rights. People will not be held to ransom. I have said on many occasions that there is a guarantee of public access to the foreshore and seabed. I think the member has to stop tilting at windmills and look at reality. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Because the Minister added that last bit I invite him to answer the part of the question about the Resource Management Act. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Well I have said about the Resource Management Act that any development for example will have to be done in accordance with the provisions of that Act. Iwi will have to comply with it and any would-be developer would have to comply with it. That hardly seems to be an unreasonable proposition. 
Hon David Parker 
: How can the Attorney-General deny that his Government’s abysmal practice has prevented this Parliament from having any meaningful advice about the effect of the change to the crucial threshold test for the establishment of a customary marine title; and why should Parliament and the 4500 insulted submitters not be critical of this? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: As I understand it Mr Parker declined extensive detail briefings on the law. The committee decided albeit by a majority not to have an independent legal assessment and now he is unhappy that Crown Law advice was not provided to him because I declined to waive privilege. He is seeking advice that simply does not exist. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Has he heard the comments from historian Professor Paul Moon that “the latest stoush around the bill is nothing more than politicking” and suggesting that “All the parties are now … trying to do whatever they can look for any excuse … to gain some traction.”; and what weight has he placed on Professor Moon’s conclusion that “what is more important is how the bill will actually operate once it’s passed into law.”? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Ultimately questions of who is entitled to customary title will be determined by applications to the court but I agree with Professor Moon that now is the time to have a principled debate on for example the Labour Party’s position versus the Government’s position. The Labour Party says there should be no test and the matter should simply be sent back to the court; the National Party and Dr Cullen say statutory codification is necessary. Dr Cullen said that when that was Labour’s first position on reform of course; it has had five positions since then.