Mapp Wayne: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Mapp Wayne: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17177] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I shall talk about the consistency of political parties’ positions on the foreshore and seabed issue. First I shall start with the Labour Party. The Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Michael Cullen has claimed that the Labour Party believes in Crown ownership for all New Zealanders and that access is guaranteed. Of course we on the Opposition side of the Chamber know that that is not a correct description of what the bill contains. We know that the way that was done was by buying off the Maori members of the Labour caucus with all kinds of derogations territorial customary rights orders customary rights orders provisions in the Resource Management Act and of course the treaty settlement provisions. I guess we will find out shortly that Nanaia Mahuta’s vote has been bought on the fact that Tainui will be getting title to the west coast harbours—just like the case of Lake Rotorua. National has drawn a line in the sand on this issue and we believe in a single simple principle. For the area of the public domain—if one will—that we all use we believe in Crown ownership on behalf of all New Zealanders. It should not be sold but should be kept for the public enjoyment of all New Zealanders irrespective of race.  
I guess that Labour at least has been honest. It has admitted its inconsistencies. On the other hand New Zealand First simply does not know that it is being inconsistent. New Zealand First goes up and down the country and makes a virtue of the fact that it says it believes in one law for all. I suppose that is true to the extent that this Parliament will be passing a single document so that all this law will be contained in a single Act. The trouble is that that Act will contain two separate laws: one for New Zealanders in general Maori and non-Maori alike and then a subset for Maori alone. How can that possibly meet the test of one law for all New Zealanders? I have to go through that issue because there was a simple approach. In fact the Prime Minister had it right 18 months ago as indeed did the Minister of Justice. Their initial reaction was in fact the correct reaction. It was to provide a confirmatory statute that would have stated Crown ownership—absolute ownership—on behalf of all New Zealanders. National said that it would support that.  
That was the Government’s initial reaction. It was only after the reaction of the Maori caucus to that position that it was changed. So the legislation went from a simple 1 or 2-page confirmatory bill which is what the Prime Minister had wanted to a 117-clause bill that provides Crown ownership territorial customary rights Maori reserves customary rights to be determined by the Maori Land Court customary rights before the High Court amendments to the Resource Management Act and of course specific clauses for treaty settlements. There are so many exceptions to the general principle of Crown ownership on behalf of all New Zealanders that that is now simply a sham.  
The Labour Government is quite happy with that—it is proud of it. On the other hand the New Zealand First Party has been fundamentally duped. When I hear Mr Mark and Mr Perry or indeed the leader of New Zealand First say that they have fixed the problem I know they have not. They have wrecked the law for New Zealanders. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Who broke it? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Those guys broke it by passing this law. New Zealand First has broken the law. That is what it has done—it has broken the law. I am sick and tired of hearing its members’ boasts which are based on a fundamental fallacy that they believe in one law for all. Their vote today will totally vacate that idea.  
I just want to pass on one point to members. We talked about customary rights and it is in our minority report. They are referred to in the existing legislation as mataitai and taiapure under the Fisheries Act 1996. We have always said that it is around those vehicles that one can protect customary rights as well as through the treaty settlements.