Finlayson Christopher: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5371] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I agree with the previous speaker that this is the first time the concept of Crown stratum has appeared in settlement legislation. He has raised some very interesting questions that really need to be addressed. 
I approached Part 2 by looking for example at the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act to see the way in which for example Lake Te Waihora or Lake Ellesmere was dealt with and also a couple of other lakes. It is interesting that in that legislation there was the transfer of the fee simple. In section 171 of that Act there was reference to the title extending to the bed only. There were also provisions about existing public access and use and existing lawful commercial use and structures. But it did not go as far as this part of the bill is purporting to do regarding the Te Arawa lake beds. 
I focus for example on clause 24 which provides that the freehold estate of the lake beds is to be inalienable. I do not know from my brief reading if that is specifically referred to in any of the provisions of the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act. In effect as my colleague Mr Henare said this means that less than full property rights are being transferred to Te Arawa because Te Arawa cannot dispose of or alienate the freehold estate nor can they grant or create a mortgage or other charge in or over a part of the lake bed. I cannot understand why they should not be permitted to do that. Subclause (2) of clause 24 is unexceptional because it provides for a transfer or transmission to a trustee and of course a provision like that would be needed. But the trustees of the trust may grant a leasehold estate in all or part of a lake bed for a term not more than 35 years and they may also grant licences easements or profits à prendre over all or part of the lake bed. 
So I would like to hear from the Minister in the chair the Hon Mark Burton because we are getting new concepts engrafted on to this legislation. As Mr Flavell said it appears that this is the first time the concept of Crown stratum has come along. My second point relates to what exactly the Te Arawa Lakes Trust can do with this freehold estate that is transferred to it. This legislation seems to give them less than full ownership rights. 
I will not deal with other parts of Part 2 because they deal with recreational matters and existing structures and so on but I endorse what Mr Henare said about new commercial activities and new structures. Clause 41 provides that the written consent of the trustees will be required before new structures and new commercial activities may be permitted. Actually the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act seems to be silent on the issue of new commercial activities and new structures although there is provision for a joint management plan to be introduced by Ngai Tahu and the Minister of Conservation and Director-General of Conservation. In any event what we have in clause 41 is another layer of management and it does seem to be a rather clumsy way of dealing with matters. 
So they are perhaps matters that the Minister in the chair may care to address. The rest of the part is pretty unexceptional and I will not waste the time of the Committee on it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I advise members that the first amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to omit subclause (2) of clause 23 and to omit paragraph (a) of clause 25 are out of order because they are inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 56 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to clause 23 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to.