Mark Ron: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mark Ron: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17039] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Is this it? It is all over. The debate on the Opposition side of the Chamber has died. If we listen to the arguments from National members now we hear them say they are so concerned about the bill that their biggest objection is that it has too many pages has too many words and is hard to read. That is the truth. The essence of the objection to this bill by Sandra Goudie and John Carter was that the bill has too many words—it is too long—and that they do not understand it. Gerry Brownlee got it right. He was smart. He could see National was going nowhere. How could he argue against Crown ownership? Sandra Goudie said she would vote against the bill because it puts the area into Crown ownership and she has always believed it was in Crown ownership—therefore she will vote against it. Does that make sense? It does not make sense. But no the National members are to vote against this legislation.  
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What about these new foreshore reserves? 
RON MARK 
: I will get to Nick Smith in a minute because there is a beauty in two-talk. Sandra Goudie is voting against the bill because it puts the foreshore and seabed in Crown ownership and she has always believed it was in Crown ownership. But now that this legislation puts it there she is voting against it because she had always thought it was there. I am confused; so is she. Gerry Brownlee could see the writing on the wall so he deliberately got himself thrown out of the Chamber.  
I come back to the arguments that were put up. Nick Smith is really good on the access clause. He is the same Nick Smith who was on television over the Christmas period bleating on about Maori locking a gate and stopping people from going across their own land in order to go fishing. Excuse me? It seems to me that the National Party which reveres the philosophy of one law for all wants one law for all—except when Maori get in the way. Nick Smith now wants access across everybody’s private land. But what does David Carter say? He is out there saying that the “freedom to roam” bill is an intrusion on property rights and that farmers like him will not stand for it. I guess that means farmers like him will not stand for it unless those brown fellas get in the way and then they will stand for it. Nick Smith says that every Maori should open the gate on his or her private property to give access across that land to the foreshore. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: On the foreshore! 
RON MARK 
: Mr Smith is very confused and we have all known that for quite some time. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Point of order— 
RON MARK 
: He always does it. When we hit him he takes a point of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table a document showing the gate on the foreshore at Wakapuaka estuary so that I can solve the member’s confusion. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member can seek leave for that but he should not interrupt the member’s speech to do so.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is a disgraceful further interruption by a member who frankly should go away and take a pill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We will not have any of that. I have noted it. The member would have been pleased with the way— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Is this a new point of order Dr Mapp? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Yes it is a new point of order Mr Chairperson. There was an imputation and a reflection in what was said to be a point of order that was completely out of order. Frankly I take offence at that kind of implication about members. It is outrageous that points of order are used as a means of abuse and division.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It did not pass by me. I thank Dr Mapp. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I will withdraw and apologise but let me tell the Committee that the National Party did that last night. I warn the National members that if they do that one more time I will nail one of them—not physically; verbally. They have one last chance. They are being too smart.  
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Just take another bribe Winston. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I will not withdraw this one. The member has just made an allegation. He said: “Just take another bribe Winston.” The member should withdraw and apologise and if he does not do that he should be thrown out of the Chamber.  
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The Committee will be aware that in court proceedings between Mr Winston Peters and my colleague Mr Carter on this very issue Winston Peters was cleaned out. He lost and the case was thrown out. I cannot see how the interjection in respect of Mr Simunovich and the allegations of him receiving a large amount of money in an envelope is in any way different from the interjections that Mr Peters has made.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a point of order. What was the matter that you raised before Mr Peters? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: He accused me of taking a bribe. He has now compounded that by saying that I was cleaned out in court. That of course is not true. My lawyer was invited by the judge to set up a new chain of pleadings. That is the fact and every lawyer knows it—and the member should take a pill.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: You have already apologised for that Mr Peters. If that is what Dr Smith said and if that implication was in respect of Mr Peters I ask him to withdraw please. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I withdraw just to be kind.  
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is not good enough to withdraw and then to add further words afterwards. It really is time for members to withdraw and apologise properly and to move on. This is not doing the Committee any good at all.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank Dr Cullen and I ask the member to do a succinct withdrawal. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I withdraw. 
RON MARK 
: New Zealand First said it would fix this issue. Our leader the Rt Hon Winston Peters said right at the start of this debate that at the end of the day the situation will be what people always believed it to be and that ownership will return to the Crown. That is precisely where the foreshore and seabed will be vested as everybody believed it was in the first place.  
It is interesting that the National Party in trying to deal with the debate right now is showing all the signs of a party that is in total disarray. Its members are very confused and have to resort to being smart alec little schoolboys to make points. That is interesting because when the National members have to resort to those sorts of tactics it proves that they have no basis for their argument and nothing valid to say. I notice that Don Brash has not made one speech in the many long hours we have been here. Gerry Brownlee rightly thought that if Don Brash was not going to be here nor would he. So he got himself thrown out of the Chamber and he is not here either. We are left with schoolboy drivel. Parliament deserves better than that and the country deserves better than that.  
New Zealand First said that it would fix this problem and it has. We will fix the leadership of the National Party too. We will make sure that it has a complete restructuring at the next election and when National members come back they may ask whether they can be a junior coalition partner in some form of Government.