Mapp Wayne: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Mapp Wayne: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17127] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I shall deal with two issues in this part. The first issue I will deal with is in relation to North Shore City. 
It became evident in the select committee some weeks ago that there was an enormous risk that North Shore City would be denied the fruits of the results of the High Court decision. The facts are these. Bayswater Marina was established 10 years ago. At that time access provisions were done by Resource Management Act consents. In recent years there has been an ongoing battle I guess between the city and the marina over a whole range of things. That culminated in litigation over the marginal strip. North Shore City acting on behalf of the residents particularly the Ngataringa Bay Society won a case that yes there shall be a marginal strip 20 metres wide and there was a very very fully argued judgment in the High Court to that effect. That went on appeal to the Court of Appeal. 
Then the Government puts out its Foreshore and Seabed Bill and that decision has stayed. But the legislation would have had the effect of cutting right across the decision of the High Court with no other remedy. The whole case of the Government in relation to this bill is that it is the alternative remedy to the Ngati Apa case. Whether or not people accept that that is the Government’s argument. In the North Shore instance however the bill would simply cut across the decision and there would be no remedy. Effectively the Government was saying that the Bayswater Marina had won by legislative fiat. Public access would not have been as certain because Resource Management Act consents are not the same as marginal strips. 
That seemed to me to be wrong. I dealt with that issue extensively at the select committee and Dail Jones in particular would know that. I have spoken at length to the North Shore City Council and I know that it has made long and urgent representations. So I do want to acknowledge that finally that issue has been recognised—only yesterday I might add—by Supplementary Order Paper 306. Unfortunately of course that would have been completely unnecessary if this matter had been dealt with properly at the outset. Alternatively if this bill had never existed this issue would never have arisen. So in many ways the Supplementary Order Paper is there because of the Government’s own negligence in relation to this matter. At best it is fixing up its own negligence. 
Frankly I am not sure whether I need to give any credit to New Zealand First in relation to this issue. Its members will have their own views. Certainly I know that the mayor of North Shore City acting on behalf of the residents and the deputy mayor and Councillor Darby in particular have gone to enormous efforts with the Government to have what would have been an enormously serious anomaly removed. What will happen now as I understand it is that the cases will proceed and one way or the other one of the two parties will win. The Court of Appeal will decide whether the North Shore City Council or Bayswater Marina will win. That is of course a reasonable outcome. As I say unlike the rest of the bill which is the Government’s alleged response to the NgatiApa case this aspect of it would simply have had a nugatory effect without the Supplementary Order Paper. So I do acknowledge that point. 
The second broader point in Part 6 is of course about Tainui. We all know that and I know that in particular as some people may well imagine. Clause 115A allows those treaty settlements. This is the whole point I say to New Zealand First. It says it has guaranteed Crown ownership on behalf of all New Zealanders. Right at the very time this bill is in the House the Government is negotiating with Tainui and others up and down this country. I predict that it will transfer in the same manner as with the Rotorua lakes to those claimants the fee simple—and I want to be very clear about that—to the West Coast harbours and perhaps other parts of New Zealand. 
The whole idea of Crown ownership being guaranteed is shot through with that exception. We on this side of the House know that that is the deal the Government has struck with its own Maori caucus. That is why those members are coming down here and meekly voting for the legislation. We will be very interested indeed to see what Nanaia Mahuta’s vote on this legislation is. One wonders whether that was how her vote was procured as well. 
This is a very important issue. The trouble is that it is double-dealing. At the very time that the Government says it is guaranteeing Crown ownership it is doing that deal behind closed doors to sell off Government ownership. Its claim will be of course that it is a separate Act of Parliament. We know that it will just trot across to the Green Party the Maori Party and possibly even New Zealand First to get support for that kind of deal. National has drawn a line in the sand.