Jones Dail: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Jones Dail: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17128] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 It is refreshing that the National Party will support this bill. The National Party will be supporting the Government’s and New Zealand First’s amendment to clause 117 so we will be getting National Party support for this legislation—at least for part of it. It is unfortunate that the National Party did not support the moves to protect reclamations and suchlike. It is unfortunate that the National Party could not support the clause that vested ownership of the foreshore and seabed in the Crown. What is the difference between supporting the Bayswater Marina situation and opposing the foreshore and seabed belonging to the Crown? The logic fails me entirely. The National Party could have voted for the clauses that did away with the amendment to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act and the 1991 legislation but no it voted against all those clauses. It is good to see that we are getting the National Party to have some slight degree of sense. 
New Zealand First is delighted with this provision. We were informed on only 16 November by the North Shore City Council that something needed to be done and today 18 November amending legislation is being passed through the House with the initial support of New Zealand First to make sure it happened. Up until now the National Party has voted against every provision of this bill and we are only too delighted to help out the court process which is being allowed to continue in this case. 
Of course the major aspect of this bill for New Zealand First is clause 112. It never occurred to the National Party at any stage that if clause 112 went through in its initial form it would have allowed the Government secretly to enter into any type of agreement with anyone and no one would ever have known what had happened in that decision. There could have been an arrangement between the Government and any person any Maori tribe or whatever whanau hapu or iwi with regard to the foreshore and seabed and no one would have known the outcome of it. Fortunately the New Zealand Law Society’s submission indicated that that issue needed to be resolved and New Zealand First has taken up that suggestion which we would expect the National Party to support. Will the National Party support the New Zealand First amendment or new clause 112 which makes it clear that any agreement entered into between the Government and whanau hapu or tribe must be registered in the High Court? There must be an application and affidavits in support and the High Court is required to check off the requirements of section 28 to make sure that they have been fulfilled so that the matter is open and above board for the protection of shall we say European New Zealanders but also Maori New Zealanders who then can see what other tribes have been doing. 
As far as Dr Wayne Mapp’s comment about clause 115A is concerned the effect of this legislation is that in any treaty settlement there will be two pieces of legislation—one for the treaty settlement and one for any transfer of the foreshore and seabed. Of course nothing at law or in parliamentary practice or in constitutional practice prevents a Government from passing a bill that allows the Government to do anything it likes including transferring ownership of land. [ 
Interruption 
] The previous National Government did that time and time again for Taupo. National members just do not understand the constitutional requirements and the situation in New Zealand. At any time a Government can sell anything. The National Government did that in the 1990s the Labour Government did it in the 1980s and New Zealand First is making sure by means of clause 12 that such issues must come before Parliament for a decision to be made rather than a Nick Smith hocking off and flogging off parts of the country as his National Party did when it was in office in the 1990s. This bill clause 12 in particular makes it clear that any sale of foreshore and seabed land must come before Parliament—as Larry Baldock has indicated as well. In terms of clause 12 Parliament must enact a special separate Act on anything to do with the foreshore and seabed—including any settlement provision. That is an extra requirement of this legislation—two pieces of legislation. There will not be the secret type of deal that the National Party Government used to get up to then rush one set of legislation through the House. 
I thought Dr Wayne Mapp understood this matter. It was told to him time and time again in the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee that a Government— 
Brent Catchpole 
: It’s too difficult for him. 
DAIL JONES 
: It is too difficult for Dr Wayne Mapp to understand. He was informed time and time again that this bill requires two sets of legislation to give effect to a treaty settlement that involves the foreshore and seabed. At law constitutionally a Government can do anything it likes provided that it passes the measure through Parliament. That is the right of a Government. No Act can bind a subsequent Government. That is why one has to vote for New Zealand First—to make sure that what used to happen does not happen in the future.