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:17110] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I want to pick up on a point that was dealt with by the Hon Dr Nick Smith. He noted the circumstances at Port Nelson. As a result of the use of the Resource Management Act the local iwi got 49 percent of the shares within a reclamation. That happened under the existing Resource Management Act. The money was paid because the port simply could not tolerate the problems of delay. It was cheaper in fact to pay the money and get the consent. What this bill will do is expand that tenfold. There are vastly greater prospects of that happening now under clause 93 which inserts new section 107A—hugely more prospects. In fact the Minister for the first time in this Parliament had the decency to admit it. There is actually a veto right contained in that clause. It is not a question of balancing interests; it is an actual veto right. The customary rights holder can simply say: “No” and that is it—no resource consent can be granted. Well of course we all know that a “Yes” can be obtained. A “Yes” will cost money. We know that it will cost a great deal more than the sort of thing that has happened at Port Nelson. It will happen many many more times.  
I particularly noted that Mr Hide spoke of 10 percent of the coastline. A minimum of 10 percent of the coastline according to the Maori caucus will be subject to customary rights orders. That will include ports. It will also include pipelines cables and all sorts of developments like marinas crossing points for launching ramps and jetties—we can name them and they will be caught. In each and every case where there are customary rights holders those holders could have the right to say no. When they have that right the only way it can be changed is by the exchange of money. That is the reality. Now at the select committee—and the chair of the committee knows this to be true—Transpower and Telecom companies that had spent a large sum of money with their lawyers because their submissions were legally presented were deeply concerned. There is no exemption for them in this clause and that was the point that was reasonably asked for. There is no exemption for strategic works. I know there have been some minor amendments to the legislation but at the end of the day under new section 107A there is still that veto. So what we have the spectre of now is— 
Jim Peters 
: Where is the veto? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: New section 107A dealing with customary rights. And I add for the benefit of members of New Zealand First that a previous Minister in the chair Dr Cullen who no doubt has been dictating the terms of the deal with those fellows in New Zealand First said so in the Chamber. Those are the words he used so I do not want to hear any cant from his allies.  
In strategic works companies could be totally paralysed. This country already has problems around infrastructure—serious problems. We cannot afford to have those kinds of hold-ups imposed on an already complicated and difficult statute the Resource Management Act by this Government. On the one hand the Government says it supports the development of the country and says it is business-friendly and so on and so forth—I have heard that many times—but on the other hand at the same time it is passing legislation that works right against that.  
At the absolute minimum we would expect that there would have been an exemption for nationally important strategic works. Actually what the Government did was the complete opposite because in clause 74 under the Resource Management Act customary rights orders are noted as being the issues of national importance. It is kind of like putting the thing on its head—rather than the strategic works being of national importance to the benefit of all the people of New Zealand Maori and non-Maori alike we have elevated the position of the customary rights orders as the items of strategic importance. The Prime Minister said that it was just about hangi stones and things of that nature but it is a lot more. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I have listened with increasing incredulity to the last three submissions from the other side and it can be only the lateness of the hour that is compounding an ill-informed view of the bill now before us. Essential to the concern of Mr Rodney Hide and Dr Wayne Mapp is the fact that a customary right order is extant at this moment. It was in existence last year the year before and right back to 1840. So we are talking about existing rights that pre-date the Resource Management Act. What this part of the bill does is simply create the provision for an adverse effects report if those existing customary rights undermine the national interest. So in a funny sort of way if we invert what Dr Wayne Mapp and Mr Rodney Hide were saying they are effectively agreeing with the bill. The “Alice in Wonderland” argument being put up by the Opposition is surely a reflection of the late hour dinner time and a lack of sustenance since because there is no logic or sense to their provisions.  
But they may be explainable for a more simple reason other than the lateness of the hour. Take for example the challenge issued by Mr Rodney Hide. In his normal bullying manner he went for a Minister in the chair who is not primarily responsible for this bill and demanded a yes or no answer when the answer itself was contained not in clause 74 which he spoke about but in clause 73(1). If he had bothered to read that he would not have wasted the time of the Committee for 5 minutes by bellowing in the eardrums of all those people at home trying to get to sleep by listening to this beautiful soporific voice and the lulling tones that most of us bring to this Chamber. He was bellowing them awake with great horror and shock at the tone of voice of someone in a debating chamber demanding an answer from the Minister when all the member had to do was cast his eyes over the bill in front of him. I guess that might be asking too much as it is asking too much of members opposite to get their heads around a concept which is essentially very very— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Concept? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: I said “concept” not “conception”. The member should not prick up her ears. I am not offering anything. I am talking about a simple fact of the matter; a concept of something that has been in existence since before any Pakeha were here since 1840; something that has been practised continuously on a very very small area of New Zealand—the foreshore and seabed. It is something that is happening right now before the bill passes. When the bill is passed it will continue to happen. If it does clash with the principles of national interest and the Resource Management Act then the adverse effects provisions arise and they protect the aims of that Act and the national interest. It is simple and perhaps that is what is so deceptive. It is not complicated and that is why people cannot understand it. If members opposite read the bill and spent less time sounding off we would all get home much earlier and this bill would be passed. This is a commendable part of the bill. The amendments to the Resource Management Act make entire sense and are deceptively simple and that is why members opposite cannot get their heads around it. I commend it to the Committee.