te Heuheu Georgina: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17032] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 This debate is on Part 2—which is something we may or may not know from the rhetoric coming from on the other side of the Chamber—and it deals with rights of access. First I will comment on something that Russell Fairbrother said earlier in the day. He said that everybody believed that the foreshore and seabed was vested in the Crown. I do not know whether a significant number of Maori would support him on that contention because their reaction to the Government’s response to the Court of Appeal decision suggests they had always thought otherwise. However as I have said this part deals with rights of access and it is the part in which the minority Labour Government and New Zealand First are trying to convince New Zealanders that their rights to our beaches are confirmed now and into the future. I ask the Hon Dover Samuels whether that will apply to the beach up at Matauri Bay and the Rt Hon Winston Peters whether it also applies to his beach at Whananaki. Perhaps those members will give their answer in their contributions further along the way.  
As I said yesterday the Government cannot have this both ways. It cannot on the one hand say to Maori people that they should not worry and that their mana is protected then on the other hand say to all other New Zealanders that their access to beaches will be free and unimpeded. That cannot hold. That is not a sustainable proposition. If it is then I would like Mr Peters to explain—because I do not think the Minister in the chair the Hon Paul Swain will tell me—how that position or postulation can be sustained. I do not see how it can be. As further evidence of that— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What about Lake Taupo? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Everybody can go to the beach. The bed is vested in Tuwharetoa but everybody has access to the beach. There is no problem whatsoever. But we are not talking about Taupo we are talking about Whananaki and Matauri Bay.  
However I do have a question that revolves round the assurance that the access that the Government and New Zealand First are trying to give New Zealanders will be unimpeded. I ask how that lines up with new clause 115A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302—a clause that I think could equally be called the “Tainui clause”. It states: “(1) To avoid doubt nothing in this Act (a) limits or otherwise affects the validity of an agreement entered into between the Crown and a claimant group to settle an historical Treaty of Waitangi claim; or (b) fetters the ability of the Crown to enter into any agreement with a claimant group in the future to settle an historical Treaty of Waitangi claim.”  
In new clause 2A “Object” the Government is saying to New Zealanders that they should not worry and everything will be OK mate. Clause 6 states something similar and new clause 12 states: “(1) Despite any enactment to the contrary no part of the public foreshore and seabed may be alienated or otherwise disposed of.” What do those provisions mean in the context of new clause 115A? On the face of it it looks from this clause as though there are instances where the foreshore and seabed will be disposed of and will be disposed of in this instance in pursuance of the settlement of claims. That in itself may be OK but it shows the cynicism of this Government and of New Zealand First when they say: “Everything will be OK mate.” What is it Mr Peters says? “We fixed it.”? Is that what he says? Well actually it has not been fixed. When the Court of Appeal decision came out the public reaction was that it expects the foreshore and the seabed to be vested in the Crown.