Smith Nick: Urgent Debates — Government Proposals for Seabed and Foreshore 
Smith Nick: Urgent Debates — Government Proposals for Seabed and Foreshore 
[Volume:611;Page:8054] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 The reason we have such a mess over this issue of foreshore and seabed is because there is a vacuum of public policy from the Government about how we deal with treaty and other issues with regard to the sort of nation we are going to be. The responsibility for this mess rests firmly and squarely with the Prime Minister who consistently refuses to engage with this particular issue. 
If we are to make progress we need to start with the principle of straight talking. One of the most telling parts of this debate was when we asked the Government the difference between “public domain” and “Crown ownership”. It did not know it could not answer—it almost implied that they were exactly the same. The honest truth is that we do not know. This document put out by the Government last Monday is not a policy document; it is a public relations strategy. The Government has a political problem so it puts out a load of spin rather than tell people what they want to know. [ 
Interruption 
] Would Mr David Benson-Pope please explain the difference between “Crown ownership” and “public domain”? 
David Benson-Pope 
: Read the document. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have Mr Benson-Pope. I have read the document from absolute back to front. The answer is that there is no difference. 
Darren Hughes 
: Did the member need legal aid? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is interesting that the member opposite takes pleasure in me standing up for a Maori mum and dad having custody of their own child. He thinks it is funny that I stand up for that. It is so typical of Government members’ approach to anybody that questions them. 
For the last 7 weeks the Mayor of Marlborough has been expressing concern about the foreshore and seabed issue that started in his district. For weeks the Prime Minister said that was perfectly responsible and she understood what the Mayor of Marlborough meant and said. But when the Mayor of Marlborough criticised the Government’s sloppy document what do we get from the Deputy Prime Minister—“He’s racist!” Do members see the pattern? If anyone dares question the Government then it will adopt nasty bullying tactics. What the Mayor of Marlborough said prior to that was all right but the moment he said that this was a sloppy unacceptable package suddenly the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand labelled him a racist. That is an interesting approach is it not? Whatever happened to the close partnership between the Government and local government? If local government questions it suddenly it ends—as we have seen with the appalling attack today by the Deputy Prime Minister on the Mayor of Marlborough. 
Let me come to the substantive point. If there is no difference between “Crown ownership” and “public domain” then why the change in language? It is because the Government wants to con Maori. It is so dishonest with Maori that it is not prepared to say it the way it is. “Public domain” is just a piece of sophistry and a euphemism for “Crown ownership”. The Government cannot point out to anybody the difference between “Crown ownership” and “public domain”. 
We in the National Party are not prepared to play those sorts of games of sophistry with the tangata whenua. If we are to grow up as a nation we need straight talk. We do not need word games; we need to say what we mean to the people of New Zealand and mean what we say. If “public domain” simply means “Crown ownership” why does the Government not have the courage to say what it means? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot challenge the Government’s courage. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I would like to know from the Government whether “public domain” means “Crown ownership”. If it is no different let us say it the way it is. Why do we want to play silly word games if legally they mean exactly the same thing? 
It is interesting that when the Mayor of Marlborough says that the Government should legislate for Crown ownership he is called a racist. What about when Margaret Wilson told this Parliament on 24 June: “The intention of the proposed legislation is to give clear expression to the Crown’s ownership of foreshore and seabed for the benefit of all New Zealanders.” 
Darren Hughes 
: Read the proposal. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Do the members opposite stand by that? It is interesting. Can we no longer rely on the word of the Attorney-General when she says in this House that Government policy is Crown ownership? What has changed? 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Read the document. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have read it all the way through Mr Clayton. It is a Clayton’s document—I suspect you probably wrote it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member must not bring the Speaker into the debate. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member opposite says that I should read the document. I have read it from page to page and it does not answer the question. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Read it again. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I ask the member this question: what is the difference between “public domain” and “Crown ownership”? 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Read the document. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: But the answer is not anywhere in the document. The member opposite should get up and answer those questions. 
Week after week we had: “Next week the Government will announce its policy.” Finally we get a document that does not answer any of the key questions. Let me put some of them to the Minister for Land Information. I know he has a problem with statistics and facts but maybe he might be able to help us. In Nelson we have 4 hectares of reclaimed land. It is sitting vacant because no one can get title. Under this proposal will the Ports of Nelson be able to get title to that area of reclaimed land? Can any Government member answer that question? 
Hon John Tamihere 
: More legal advice. We get plenty of it now. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh I see. Mr Tamihere the Minister for Land Information who no doubt has had a big input into this policy cannot answer me that question. [ 
Interruption 
] It matters a huge amount because companies in Nelson want to be able to build buildings and create jobs. There is a smell-reduction factory owned by Sealord's—a Maori-owned company—that wants to do that. Even after 7 weeks the Government cannot provide an answer to that fundamental issue. Over 1000 buildings exist on areas of foreshore such as the Boatshed Restaurant—very well known in Nelson—so who will get the rent? Can the Government answer me that? 
Hon Member 
: No one. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No one will get the rent! The Boatshed will be delighted to know that it does not have to pay any rent. Is that right? 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Yes. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Can the bright young member for Kapiti Coast tell me whether the Boatshed will still have to pay rent? [ 
Interruption 
] What about the other thousand people who have leases and licences to occupy areas of foreshore and seabed? Do they pay rent? [ 
Interruption 
] After 7 weeks the Government distributes a discussion document and cannot answer even those fundamental questions. That gives us some idea of the farce the Government has produced with respect to this issue. 
If the Government cannot explain the difference between “public domain” and “Crown ownership” it is exploiting Maori in some of the worst ways I have ever seen in this Parliament. It is producing a con. It is saying: “Oh no we will not have “Crown ownership”; we will have “public domain” but there is no difference.” That is not the way to treat any group of New Zealanders let alone the Maori people. I say to Government members opposite—what a disgrace! They have to do better than that; they have to be able to answer those questions. We need a clear policy not a public relations exercise. The foreshore and seabed of New Zealand is what makes this country great. It is our greatest recreational asset and the source of huge wealth. 
The last question I want to put to the Government is what specific rights will the Maori Land Court be able to give exclusively? We need answers to those questions because the issue does not stand up to National’s one standard of citizenship for all New Zealanders.