Mapp Wayne: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17047] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I want to talk—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I do hope that Dr Mapp’s time has not commenced. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I also suggest that had such behaviour occurred on this side of the Chamber we might have ended up with someone being ejected from the Chamber. But I suppose you have to make exceptions when people are as remedial as Mr Cosgrove. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That was not a point of order; it only leads to disorder. I had called for order. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I want to talk about two issues. The first is the claim that New Zealand First members have been making which is that they believe in one law for all. Their leader said that in his contribution. In fact he has been going around the whole country making that claim and he gets a certain number of votes for it. Today he is doing precisely the opposite. He is not just voting for the legislation; he actually participated in its drafting. Mr Dail Jones and Mr Winston Peters have been working together with the Government to build separatist law. That is what has happened. I see headlines alleging that New Zealand First believes in one law for all. In reality they provide divisive law.  
If we look at the territorial customary rights rules we see they can be claimed only by Maori. That is the first point. No one can reasonably dispute that fact. How can that possibly fit within the rubric of one law for all? There are two separate bodies of law; there is simply no doubt about that fact. The second point is that New Zealand First claims to be providing Crown law and Crown ownership for all New Zealanders. 
Dave Hereora 
: That’s right. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The member says: “That’s right.” Territorial customary rights cut right across that. They will restrict the ability of the owner the Crown—on behalf of all New Zealanders—to freely exercise its ownership. Why do I say that? We have only to look at clause 6 the purported access provision to see why. Such provisions are typically drafted so that the first part of the clause is a general proposition—in this case it is that there shall be a complete right of access across the public foreshore—and then the devil is in the detail. We have only to go to clause 6(3) to see all the provisos. [ 
Interruption 
] In that instance access rights can be restricted and limited and that is exactly what has happened. So right through this legislation one gets the general proposition then the provisos.  
I want to provide another example for members of New Zealand First who clearly do not understand this and they have only to look at clause 11 “Public foreshore and seabed vested in the Crown”. Again in subclause (1) is the general proposition that ownership is vested in the Crown absolutely. Almost immediately below that subclause (3) provides: “Subsection (1) does not affect customary rights that are able to be recognised and protected under Part 3 and Part 4.” Those parts of course are the very areas where we get the territorial customary rights and the customary rights orders which then provide limitations to the general ownership provisions.  
So there are general grand-sounding principles that are then shot through with all sorts of exceptions that serve to limit the public interest. New Zealand First claims to protect the public interest but I will not ascribe even that to the Labour Government. Those Labour members know what they are doing. They know they are setting up separatist law and are proud of it. In the  
New Zealand Herald  
today we read that the Maori members expect 10 percent of the coastline to be subject to those territorial customary rights orders.  
Government Member 
: Ah! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Those members might groan but I believe what I read in the papers—[ 
Interruption 
] When journalists quote or refer to the views of the Maori caucus it is because they have spoken to its members. Those members know that reality. Those members opposite spoke to the journalist and told her that it was exactly their expectation. They told the  
New Zealand Herald  
that they expect the percentage to be 10 percent and that is what they will demand. Dover Samuels cannot possibly deny that.