te Heuheu Georgina: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
te Heuheu Georgina: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17135] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I want to make some comments on this part. To start with I will make a couple of observations on the comments made by Dail Jones. He raved on about the National Government selling things off in the 1990s but of course he failed to say that quite a lot of New Zealand assets started being sold off in the 1980s when Labour was in power. But having said that I just do not know how any of that is relevant to now because quite frankly at that point there was not a Government saying to the public of New Zealand: “Don’t you worry. You’ve got ownership of the foreshore and seabed through Crown ownership and you have it in perpetuity.” That provision was not around at that earlier time so I do not see the relevance of the member’s remarks.  
I refer now to clause 112. Despite the comments of Larry Baldock and the fact that he felt heartened because there have been some amendments to that clause it is clearly still open to the kind of negotiation that the public of New Zealand have grown weary of—the backroom stuff and deals going on. It is still open to the charge of backroom dealing. Quite frankly I am surprised that Mr Peters supports this. I thought that he did not like this kind of carry-on either where things are done behind closed doors. If that is not the case maybe he will explain it to me but on the face of it that is how it looks to me. Under clause 112 the Attorney-General—whoever that might be; I have to hope it will be someone else—and the Minister of Maori Affairs may enter into an agreement. So all that kind of carry-on goes on behind closed doors. If they come to some agreement that but for the vesting of the foreshore and seabed in the Crown Maori would have had basically a freehold title then that shall be confirmed by the High Court.  
There are two points to be made. The first point which Jeanette Fitzsimons referred to is an acknowledgment of course that Maori would probably have had freehold title issued to them. That also flies in the face of all of those who were going along nicely and thinking wrongly that the Crown already owned the foreshore and seabed. So it is no wonder Maori were up in arms—and still are.  
The other part of this is that this backroom talking having gone on and the Ministers having reached some agreement with a Maori grouping they will then have to go to the High Court. That raises for me the issue that this bill—this framework being set up—is not only complex but also has built into it the capacity for endless court applications to be made. I want to ask whether the courts will be properly resourced to deal with all that additional work. In particular how will the applicants be expected to have their customary rights recognised? Will there be legal aid? Is that another cost that will be piled on top of this legislation? I would like Dr Cullen the Minister in the chair or Dail Jones to tell me how people are to file their applications in the High Court without incurring cost. [ 
Interruption 
] OK. So this is just building up expectations without giving the proper means for people to get their customary rights recognised? 
Dail Jones 
: This is not a National Party gravy train.  
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: OK. It is a New Zealand First gravy train. Right great! It is not a National Party gravy train; it is a New Zealand First gravy train. I turn to clause 115A— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No gravy train! 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: I tell the member that there will be a gravy train. I am sorry but this will create another gravy train—it will. As long as people have to go to the courts there will be a gravy train.