Points of order peppered proceedings in Parliament when Māori Party MP Takuta Ferris was raising questions about the Supreme Court ruling that riverbeds can be included in Māori customary marine title orders, if other legal tests are met.
As Politik’s Richard Harman noted, the country’s most senior Māori judge, Sir Joe Williams, was one of the four Supreme Court judges who arrived at that decision.
He further noted that the judgement on the Treaty of Waitangi and rivers
… has sent a shudder through the Government, with Ministers scrambling to try and understand its implications.
Ferris was keen to learn about the implications, too, no doubt hoping to score some political points at the same time.
In the upshot, his questions drew attention to an existential threat to those Māori who – apparently – would not survive without “customary kai gathering”.
This suggests they do not or cannot pop down to the local shop or nearby supermarket to stock up with tucker.
It further suggests the likes of McDonalds and KFC haven’t spread their tentacles into every New Zealand community.
Ferris kicked off by asking Māori Development Minister Tama Potaka:
What advice, if any, has he received from officials on the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision that the “beds of navigable rivers form part of the common marine and coastal area as defined in MACA, and recognition orders may extend to them”?
But before Potaka could answer, National MP Stuart Smith had leapt in with a point of order:
The questioner is wearing a T-shirt with a political slogan on it, which is against Speakers’ rulings, and I believe it may even have a party logo, which, again, you have ruled is not allowed in the House.
The Speaker accepted an assurance it was not a political slogan and was not a Māori Party slogan.
And Potaka was allowed to reply:
As the Minister for Māori Development, none. But I have received a range of positive advice around the Government’s efforts to support Māori housing through partnering to build affordable homes in iconic and majestic places like Te Kao with Te Aupōuri, or Hopuhopu with Waikato-Tainui, and, of course, Te Kūiti with Ngāti Maniapoto.
Ferris next asked Potaka:
Does he agree with the Supreme Court that Acts of Parliament have not sufficiently or clearly extinguished Māori customary rights or title to navigable riverbeds?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: I have not read or heard any advice to that effect, and, as the Minister for Māori Development, I am not responsible for receiving in the first instance the advice in relation to that matter.
Tākuta Ferris: Has he been consulted by the Minister of Justice—there he is—on any potential changes to the marine and coastal area (MACA) bill that would extinguish or limit Māori customary rights to riverbeds in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: Kāre anō au kia kōrero ki te Minita mō ngā Take Ture. Heoi anō kāre e tukua ērā momo kōrero ki tērā Minita. Nei e hāngai ana te mema ki ngā tikanga me ngā ritenga o tēnei Whare ka mōhio hoki a ia ko te tangata tōtika ki te whakautu i tana pātai ngāwari nei kei reira, kei te Minita mō ngā mahi whakataunga kerēme Tiriti.
[I have not yet spoken to the Minister of Justice. However, those types of discourse are not forwarded to that Minister. Now, if the member was familiar with the practices and conventions of this House, he would be aware that the correct person to respond to his simple question is over there, the Minister for Treaty claims settlement actions.]
Bishop at that juncture drew the Speaker’s attention to ruling 186/6, about opinions being sought that, in effect, are asking for a legal interpretation not being permitted under the Standing Orders.
The first supplementary from Mr Ferris, in particular, asked whether or not the Minister agreed with the Supreme Court, which is, essentially, asking for a legal interpretation. I think we’re OK, but I’m just drawing your attention to it, because we don’t want to stray into territory that is dangerous.
The Speaker said it was not unreasonable to ask whether a Minister had an opinion.
Ferris pressed on:
What impact will the Government’s decision to forge on with the marine and coastal area amendment bill have on Māori-Crown relationships when these changes will lead to re-hearings, decision reversals, and millions more being spent on relitigation?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: All those matters are hypothetical at this point in time, and I implore the member opposite asking those questions to put those types of questions to the Minister responsible for the portfolios and that which lies in his bailiwick.
Now it was Winston Peters’ turn to quibble about Ferris’ mention of MACA.
Fair enough, too. Products containing Maca, a plant native to the Andes, are available in New Zealand as a powder or capsules for energy, stamina, hormonal balance, and libido support.
Various maca supplements can be bought from health food stores like Health 2000 NZ, online retailers like HealthPost NZ, and supermarkets.
Ferris – of course – was referring to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Was the Minister having difficulty answering the question because whatever the Supreme Court was deliberating on, it was not on “MACA”, but on a piece of legislation not described that way?
SPEAKER: Well, I don’t know that he’s got responsibility for what the Supreme Court was actually meaning.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, you have, and you missed it.
SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, you and your Clerk have, and you’ve missed it. This question makes no sense because there is no—
SPEAKER: No, hang on—we’ll stop right there. OK, I’m not—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: There was no such decision.
SPEAKER: Look, I’m going to tell the member that I’m sick to death of his trying to rewrite the Standing Orders, trying to rewrite the procedure of the House, and trying to tell me how to do the job. If he doesn’t like it, there’s a remedy for him, and he should use it. In the meantime, the question has been accepted and the question stands. If anybody knows me in this House, they’ll know that I hate acronyms, and the sight of it today has particularly annoyed me.
Listeners who were still following Ferris’ questions about a court ruling with deep implications for customary entitlements then learned the grim news that the survival of some Māori is geared to their rights to collect their tucker:
Tākuta Ferris: Is it fair that whānau and hapū who rely on customary kai gathering for survival should have their unfettered access rights diminished in the midst of a cost of living crisis?
But wasn’t Ferris drawing attention to a Treaty privilege?
Maori who rely on customary kai gathering, it seems fair to suppose, will not be bothered by the cost-of-living crisis.
To the contrary, people who have no rights to gather their tucker from the sea or whatever would appear to be at a disadvantage.
But Potaka did not seize on that point. Rather, he replied:
I am not an arbiter of fairness, but what I will say is that in the Hauraki Gulf marine protection bill, we continue to preserve customary fishing independent of the biodiversity objectives that were previously forced upon customary fishing by the previous administration.
Now it was Paul Goldsmith’s turn to chime in with advice:
Is he [Potaka] aware that it is the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations that is responsible for the marine and coastal area Act, and the general practice is that, if someone wants to ask questions on a particular portfolio, they should ask it to the right Minister?
Potaka said he welcomed that observation
The Speaker, however, said the question
“… is really just inviting disorder. Asking another Minister about his competence is not something that looks good for the Government…”
There were more questions from Ferris and answers from Potaka before Stuart Smith reminded us of his concerns about the bloody T-shirt:
“I don’t think it has been dealt with. I want to refer you to Speakers’ rulings 62/3 and 20/4, and I think you could settle the matter by asking the member what is on his T-shirt. I think—
The Speaker disagreed:
I’ll tell you where we’re going: this is a time for the Government to account for itself. I’ll certainly look at those Speakers’ rulings, but not immediately.
Maybe we will learn more about about the T shirt on a future occasion.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
… has sent a shudder through the Government, with Ministers scrambling to try and understand its implications.
Ferris was keen to learn about the implications, too, no doubt hoping to score some political points at the same time.
In the upshot, his questions drew attention to an existential threat to those Māori who – apparently – would not survive without “customary kai gathering”.
This suggests they do not or cannot pop down to the local shop or nearby supermarket to stock up with tucker.
It further suggests the likes of McDonalds and KFC haven’t spread their tentacles into every New Zealand community.
Ferris kicked off by asking Māori Development Minister Tama Potaka:
What advice, if any, has he received from officials on the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision that the “beds of navigable rivers form part of the common marine and coastal area as defined in MACA, and recognition orders may extend to them”?
But before Potaka could answer, National MP Stuart Smith had leapt in with a point of order:
The questioner is wearing a T-shirt with a political slogan on it, which is against Speakers’ rulings, and I believe it may even have a party logo, which, again, you have ruled is not allowed in the House.
The Speaker accepted an assurance it was not a political slogan and was not a Māori Party slogan.
And Potaka was allowed to reply:
As the Minister for Māori Development, none. But I have received a range of positive advice around the Government’s efforts to support Māori housing through partnering to build affordable homes in iconic and majestic places like Te Kao with Te Aupōuri, or Hopuhopu with Waikato-Tainui, and, of course, Te Kūiti with Ngāti Maniapoto.
Ferris next asked Potaka:
Does he agree with the Supreme Court that Acts of Parliament have not sufficiently or clearly extinguished Māori customary rights or title to navigable riverbeds?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: I have not read or heard any advice to that effect, and, as the Minister for Māori Development, I am not responsible for receiving in the first instance the advice in relation to that matter.
Tākuta Ferris: Has he been consulted by the Minister of Justice—there he is—on any potential changes to the marine and coastal area (MACA) bill that would extinguish or limit Māori customary rights to riverbeds in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: Kāre anō au kia kōrero ki te Minita mō ngā Take Ture. Heoi anō kāre e tukua ērā momo kōrero ki tērā Minita. Nei e hāngai ana te mema ki ngā tikanga me ngā ritenga o tēnei Whare ka mōhio hoki a ia ko te tangata tōtika ki te whakautu i tana pātai ngāwari nei kei reira, kei te Minita mō ngā mahi whakataunga kerēme Tiriti.
[I have not yet spoken to the Minister of Justice. However, those types of discourse are not forwarded to that Minister. Now, if the member was familiar with the practices and conventions of this House, he would be aware that the correct person to respond to his simple question is over there, the Minister for Treaty claims settlement actions.]
Bishop at that juncture drew the Speaker’s attention to ruling 186/6, about opinions being sought that, in effect, are asking for a legal interpretation not being permitted under the Standing Orders.
The first supplementary from Mr Ferris, in particular, asked whether or not the Minister agreed with the Supreme Court, which is, essentially, asking for a legal interpretation. I think we’re OK, but I’m just drawing your attention to it, because we don’t want to stray into territory that is dangerous.
The Speaker said it was not unreasonable to ask whether a Minister had an opinion.
Ferris pressed on:
What impact will the Government’s decision to forge on with the marine and coastal area amendment bill have on Māori-Crown relationships when these changes will lead to re-hearings, decision reversals, and millions more being spent on relitigation?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: All those matters are hypothetical at this point in time, and I implore the member opposite asking those questions to put those types of questions to the Minister responsible for the portfolios and that which lies in his bailiwick.
Now it was Winston Peters’ turn to quibble about Ferris’ mention of MACA.
Fair enough, too. Products containing Maca, a plant native to the Andes, are available in New Zealand as a powder or capsules for energy, stamina, hormonal balance, and libido support.
Various maca supplements can be bought from health food stores like Health 2000 NZ, online retailers like HealthPost NZ, and supermarkets.
Ferris – of course – was referring to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Was the Minister having difficulty answering the question because whatever the Supreme Court was deliberating on, it was not on “MACA”, but on a piece of legislation not described that way?
SPEAKER: Well, I don’t know that he’s got responsibility for what the Supreme Court was actually meaning.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, you have, and you missed it.
SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, you and your Clerk have, and you’ve missed it. This question makes no sense because there is no—
SPEAKER: No, hang on—we’ll stop right there. OK, I’m not—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: There was no such decision.
SPEAKER: Look, I’m going to tell the member that I’m sick to death of his trying to rewrite the Standing Orders, trying to rewrite the procedure of the House, and trying to tell me how to do the job. If he doesn’t like it, there’s a remedy for him, and he should use it. In the meantime, the question has been accepted and the question stands. If anybody knows me in this House, they’ll know that I hate acronyms, and the sight of it today has particularly annoyed me.
Listeners who were still following Ferris’ questions about a court ruling with deep implications for customary entitlements then learned the grim news that the survival of some Māori is geared to their rights to collect their tucker:
Tākuta Ferris: Is it fair that whānau and hapū who rely on customary kai gathering for survival should have their unfettered access rights diminished in the midst of a cost of living crisis?
But wasn’t Ferris drawing attention to a Treaty privilege?
Maori who rely on customary kai gathering, it seems fair to suppose, will not be bothered by the cost-of-living crisis.
To the contrary, people who have no rights to gather their tucker from the sea or whatever would appear to be at a disadvantage.
But Potaka did not seize on that point. Rather, he replied:
I am not an arbiter of fairness, but what I will say is that in the Hauraki Gulf marine protection bill, we continue to preserve customary fishing independent of the biodiversity objectives that were previously forced upon customary fishing by the previous administration.
Now it was Paul Goldsmith’s turn to chime in with advice:
Is he [Potaka] aware that it is the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations that is responsible for the marine and coastal area Act, and the general practice is that, if someone wants to ask questions on a particular portfolio, they should ask it to the right Minister?
Potaka said he welcomed that observation
The Speaker, however, said the question
“… is really just inviting disorder. Asking another Minister about his competence is not something that looks good for the Government…”
There were more questions from Ferris and answers from Potaka before Stuart Smith reminded us of his concerns about the bloody T-shirt:
“I don’t think it has been dealt with. I want to refer you to Speakers’ rulings 62/3 and 20/4, and I think you could settle the matter by asking the member what is on his T-shirt. I think—
The Speaker disagreed:
I’ll tell you where we’re going: this is a time for the Government to account for itself. I’ll certainly look at those Speakers’ rulings, but not immediately.
Maybe we will learn more about about the T shirt on a future occasion.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
No comments:
Post a Comment