Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7827] 
6.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister for Land Information 
: Why did he say “I stand by those statements” in response to my question last Wednesday “Does the Minister stand by his statement to the  
New Zealand Herald 
 that: ‘significant chunks of the foreshore’—not the Queen’s chain the foreshore—‘has private ownership title’ and that we are talking thousands and not hundreds of kilometres of private title to the foreshore?” when the Department of Conservation office solicitor told the Planning and Development Committee in respect of the foreshore “the proportion of private title is probably very small (less than 1 percent of the coastline)” and the Prime Minister is reported today as saying foreshore ownership was a “very small amount”? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 I refer the member to my answer to question No. 6 last Wednesday. Given the preliminary work done and given the fact that it was a hugely complex issue I stand by those statements. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why does the Minister maintain the facade of those statements that large amounts of foreshore are in private ownership when the Prime Minister says that it is a very small amount when official Department of Conservation papers say that it is less than 1 percent when Public Access New Zealand says he is misleading the public and the Parliament when Otago University surveying lecturer and expert on seaward boundaries says that in 25 years of experience he can think of only one title that went to the low-water mark including foreshore and when numerous surveyors all over the country say that no titles they have seen include the low-water mark and the foreshore; why does the Minister not just concede he got it wrong? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Notwithstanding the list of people just mentioned by the Hon Dr Nick Smith none of them can be correct because in the history of this country nobody has ever sized this issue. At this particular point in time Land Information New Zealand is working assiduously to size it. Once it is sized the information will be made available. 
Moana Mackey 
: Would the Minister consider it prudent to base Government policy in such a complex area on a 10-year-old nine-line legal opinion? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Definitely not. I tend to agree with the Department of Conservation chief legal adviser Jonty Somers who reportedthat “a great deal of weight could not be given to the 1993 assertions” and “It is impossible to know what was the basis of Mrs Mansfield’s 1 per cent figure. Land Information is the only agency that would have that information.” For the edification of Dr Nick Smith even if it were 1 percent of 18700 kilometres this is 1870 kilometres and most Kiwis would suggest that is quite a sizeable chunk. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know we do have a problem with numeracy standards but if the Minister reflects on 10 percent of 18000 kilometres I think he will find it is 1800 and not the figure he used. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Dail Jones 
: As the Prime Minister appears to be more in favour of the 1993 report than of the Minister’s view—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry Mr Jones but comments are being made from a number of places. I cannot quite hear what the member is saying. Would he please repeat his question. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The comments are being made because of the degree of frustration. The Minister clearly knows he has given a wrong answer. His colleagues are telling him that his answer was wrong. It would be easier perhaps if the Minister gave the right answer now and then we could move on. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I would move the decimal point one place. 
Dail Jones 
: As the Prime Minister appears to be more in favour of the 1993 report what advice has the Minister received from the Prime Minister that his views are inaccurate by more than a small amount are inflammatory and are causing as much damage to the attitudes of New Zealanders as those of the leader of the National Opposition? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: None. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Can the Minister of Statistics tell the House how we can believe anything he says—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister is the Minister of Statistics but this question is to the Minister for Land Information. The member cannot swap portfolios halfway through a question. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: A decimal point tripped me up! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please restate the question. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: How can we believe anything the Minister says after when challenged he stood by his untrue statements—which the Prime Minister now confirms were untrue—and in the light of the fact that he pleaded guilty in February 1995 to two charges of forgery and two charges of uttering forged documents? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Because I am a good bloke and I can be trusted. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During the course of Mr Shirley’s question there were some utterances from three or four members from the Government benches. They should be asked to leave the Chamber in the same way as Mr Brownlee was asked to leave because he interjected during a point of order. I heard them. There were three or four members who muttered about the fact that Mr Shirley had commented on the issue of fraud that Mr Tamihere had been involved in. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry; I did not hear those comments. I will listen very carefully. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that even the Prime Minister conceded that the level of private foreshore ownership is very small and further confirmed that it was probably about 1 percent can the Minister confirm to the House that his official public relations adviser is the former Iraqi Information Minister? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If the problem had not been sized and has still not been sized why did the Minister make a comment to the extent he has then revert to saying he was talking about potential private ownership and then go on the  
Holmes  
programme and make a prize idiot of himself? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: There is no doubt that there are 18700 kilometres of New Zealand coastline excluding the Chatham Islands. There is no doubt that as at 1 August from official information from Land Information New Zealand there is potentially up to 6600 kilometres of the coastline—and for the edification of the member for Tauranga that is not the foreshore. The foreshore is the wet bit that gets wet now and then. Seabed is the stuff that gets wet most of the time but not all the time. Above the high-water mark are the beaches or the coastline. Up to potentially 6600 kilometres of the coastline might be in private ownership. As I said at the moment those are being researched by Land Information New Zealand. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why on the  
Holmes 
 show in front of the New Zealand public did he say that one-third of the beach is potentially privately owned and noting that the  
Oxford Dictionary 
 definition of “beach” is: “Seashore or lakeshore covered with water-worn pebbles or sand between the high and low water mark” on what possible basis did he make that claim on New Zealand television? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The  
Concise Oxford Dictionary 
 defines the word “foreshore” as “part of the shore between high and low water marks or between water and land cultivated or built on”. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That question was not about a comparative reading of dictionaries but about his answering beyond that having had an explanation of what the foreshore would be. Frankly I am disturbed as I am sure a lot of Maori members of this Parliament are at the level of straight-out second-class paternalism that has been bestowed on some Maori members who are not fit to be in Cabinet but who are there or who are Ministers of the Crown who should not be there. That is not an adequate answer for anybody and to tolerate it really is a case of inverse racism. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No it is not. I thought answer given was an answer. The Minister is perfectly entitled to doubt a definition and to quote an authority and he did so.