Mapp Wayne: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16967] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 What an arrant bit of nonsense we have heard from the Deputy Prime Minister! It is typical of his arrogance in this place. It is a testament is it not that he himself has not read new clause 2A. It has to be read out because Mr Jones as usual has tried to deny the public the truth. What does this clause state?  
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The member cannot say that I am in any way trying to deny anyone the truth as if I am involved in a lie. I take personal offence at that and I ask the member to withdraw. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is right and he has taken offence at the comment. I ask the member to withdraw. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Speaking to the point of order I appreciate that— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have ruled on the point of order.  
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I withdraw and apologise.  
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Perhaps I should have risen earlier but I expected you to appreciate that to say that someone is trying to deny the truth of something is not to accuse that person of being a liar. In fact the rule cannot be that any member of Parliament can interrupt debate just by deciding that that person does not happen to like vigorous discussion. I say to you that you are setting a very bad precedent. I realise that the Speaker made a ruling yesterday which I think he now regrets but that is not in the rulings and I suggest that you consult with the Clerk and get on with the matter. Otherwise we will find that this debate will not be a robust exchange of views; it will be just a series of points of order breaking up speeches. I think the member ought to be allowed to start again.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member certainly does make a valid point but what I counsel members against is making imputations against other members. The member certainly did take offence at that. But the Hon Richard Prebble does make a point about robust debate. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Do I take it that what you have just said is another ruling? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Well I ask you whether it means we cannot have robust debate. Does it mean that if the reality is that the truth as one party might see it is being put in a way quite contrary to the way it is being put by another party we are not able to suggest that is what is happening? Everybody knows—and Dr Cullen has alluded to the fact that editorials and other articles in the papers have attested to this fact—that New Zealand First has been intrinsically involved in the development of the amendment bill that we now see before us and that Mr Jones himself has been very instrumental in putting together a number of the clauses here. In fact yesterday I overheard the Deputy Prime Minister congratulating Mr Jones on the fine work he had done on this bill.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has made his point. I say to members that casting aspersions and attacking the member as against the point of view is what this is about and the member has clearly said he took offence. That is the end of the matter. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: When a Supplementary Order Paper of 67 pages an amendment bill is denied to the public until the beginning of the debate how are members to know the truth of the contents of the material? They have almost no time to read it and that is the point I was making. 
The Government claims that new clause 2A will protect the Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed. Then it goes on to state: “including the protection of the association of whanau hapu and iwi with areas of the public foreshore and seabed.” What the Government is doing here is clearly preferring Maori above all other members of the community. The Minister in the chair Michael Cullen might deny it but that is what clause 2A actually states. Clause 2A for the benefit of Government members sets out the object of the bill itself. So it is very very clear that we have two classes of citizenship. Maori are in a preferred position. That is why the clause refers to protection of the association of whanau hapu and iwi. I do not believe that those terms are intended to apply to all New Zealanders. Maybe they are—maybe the junior whip will tell us that they are terms for all New Zealanders—but I believe that they are intended for Maori alone. So that is a compromise. 
It is a derogation of the general right and the whole of the rest of the bill is intended to achieve precisely that. I am sure we will see Dail Jones get up and say that it is wonderful that the Auckland regatta is now protected and that one can apply to the High Court for a customary rights order. Well I ask Mr Jones whether there actually was a problem. Were the organisers of the regatta seriously troubled that they might not be able to hold the regatta in January 2005—the first time in 165 years that the organisers really feared they would not be able to hold it? We know that that is a nonsense proposition. The reality is that that customary rights order said by the Deputy Prime Minister and by Mr Dail Jones to be available for the general public is in fact of no value whatsoever. The only case that is ever mentioned is that of the regatta which does not need the protection. Frankly it is a tissue and a fabrication. 
On the other hand Mr Dover Samuels is correct. He says that Maori will get all sorts of rights and protections. Those will be deep and they will compromise the public interest.