Today Wednesday 16 June, ACT MP David Garrett questioned Attorney-General Christopher Finalyson on the extent that customary title of land will apply in places such as Raglan. The text of the questions and responses in the House of Representatives follow:
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) to the Attorney-General: Will customary title give its iwi holders an effective veto over coastal activities such as aquaculture, building or extending a building over foreshore or seabed, and undertaking any excavation of the foreshore and seabed, given that customary title grants title-holders “the right to permit activities that need a coastal permit or resource consent”?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) :Iwi with a customary title will have the ability to permit specified activities in their area of title, subject to guarantees protecting public access and existing use rights. This is a basic property right; this Government believes in property rights.
David Garrett: How many years does he estimate that it will take the Crown, the courts, and iwi to determine the number and extent of customary titles in the foreshore and seabed of New Zealand: 10 years, 20 years, or perhaps 100 years?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: As long as it takes to get a just result. The quality of justice is not determined by the speed with which things are done.
David Garrett: Is he able to assure the people of New Zealand that customary title will not be granted to iwi by the Crown or the courts over any part of the following: Ninety Mile Beach, Raglan Beach, Wainui Beach, Ōhope Beach, or Pīhā Beach?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I do not think that it would be helpful to get down to that level of detail in answer to a parliamentary question. These are fact-specific matters, and I will deal with the matter in that way.
David Garrett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very deliberately precise, and it asked the Attorney-General whether he could give an assurance regarding customary title over certain very discrete, identified pieces of New Zealand coastland. But what we got was a waffly answer.
Mr SPEAKER: No, no. I believe that the answer from the Minister was that he would not give that assurance.
Hon David Parker: How much more of the foreshore and seabed does the Attorney-General expect will be subject to customary titles as a consequence of the change to the threshold test that applies to territorial customary rights—that change being to no longer require continuous ownership of contiguous land—[Interruption ]
Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the member who is asking his question, and I will invite him to start again. It is a serious question, and I could not hear it with the unnecessary interjection across the House.
Hon David Parker: How much more of the foreshore and seabed does the Attorney-General expect will be subject to customary titles as a consequence of the change to the threshold test that currently applies to territorial customary rights—that change being to no longer require continuous ownership of contiguous land, while still requiring continuous exclusive control of the foreshore and seabed concerned?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: With respect, that is a very good question, and it is an important question. I believe, in answer to the member, that we are not talking about very much, at all. The overarching requirement is the exclusive possession test. This becomes a factor, not a requirement. At the end of the day I do not believe that it will result in very much more foreshore and seabed becoming the subject of customary title. But that is a good question.
Rahui Katene: How will the tests for customary title accommodate the special circumstances of iwi and hapū who have been affected by raupatu, fraudulent land transactions, or other breaches of the Treaty?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The tests for customary title do not prevent iwi that have suffered raupatu or other forms of land loss from seeking customary title. They can do that either by negotiation or by application to the court. They may not be able to satisfy the test, but this is a jurisdictional question; we are not in the business of preventing them from at least being able to make the claim.
Rahui Katene: How will customary title translate into development, occupation, and usage rights for hapū and iwi, “as though they were the owners of the land”?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Within areas that have a customary title, iwi will have the same permission right as other property owners. They will also have development rights and will own the minerals that were confiscated by the 2004 Act, and by that, obviously, I exclude gold, uranium, silver, and petroleum, as I indicated in an answer yesterday.
NZ Parliament > Parliamentary business > Order Paper and questions > Questions for oral answer > 16 June 2010