Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 3 to Minister 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 3 to Minister 
[Volume:617;Page:13302] 
2.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister for Land Information 
: Why did he tell the House on 12 August 2003 that he stood by statements that “significant chunks of the foreshore … has private ownership title” and that we are talking about thousands and not hundreds of kilometres of private title to the foreshore and on 13 August 2003 say that his initial assessment was “based on Land Information New Zealand’s advice which was drawn from preliminary work in this area” when papers just released under the Official Information Act 1982 show that advice requested by him and received on 18 July and confirmed on 25 July said “officials’ preliminary view is that the quantum is very small”? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 As the member knows on 1 August 2003 I received advice from Land Information New Zealand. Approximately 6600 kilometres of coastline could be potentially bounded by privately owned land. If he took my comments as confirming his misapprehension as between foreshore bounded by privately owned land and privately owned foreshore I regret this. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Minister claim there was any confusion in this Parliament about the ownership of the foreshore when my question on notice—so he had it hours in advance—read: “Does the Minister stand by his statement to the  
New Zealand Herald 
 that significant chunks of the foreshore not the Queen’s Chain”—I explicitly used those words—“were in private title?”. Given that I was very explicit that it was excluding the Queen’s Chain why did he continue to tell this Parliament that there were large amounts of private ownership? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The question was not placed on notice. It was a supplementary question asked of question No. 4 on that date. I might add that the member himself should take his own advice. When he was speaking to this House in September 1993 on the Queen’s Chain Protection Bill he noted that we should not “mislead the public about exactly what those legal provisions are in terms of this complex issue of access. I invite Opposition members to be a little bit more responsible about the way in which they present this issue.” 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Mr Tamihere stated that it was not a question on notice. I seek the leave of the House to table the  
Hansard 
 which shows that question No. 6 on 12 August specifically as quoted was a question on notice. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that  
Hansard 
. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How can you have judged that Mr Tamihere addressed the question when he was asked a question by Mr Smith and he got up and did not answer it but in fact read out a 1993 quote that had dubious linkages to the issue? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I judged it because I was the Speaker and I ruled it in order. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What is Land Information New Zealand’s final advice on the portion of the foreshore bounded by privately owned land and the number of parcels surveyed to below the mean high-water mark? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: In its final report to me which I released publicly on 13 January this year Land Information confirmed that of a total coastline of 19833 kilometres 6032 kilometres is bounded by land in private ownership. It also indicated that approximately 48 parcels exist that are surveyed to below the mean high-water mark. That figure does not count foreshore included in private title due to erosion. Regarding coastline and foreshore this represents the first inventory ever undertaken in the history of this country. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Minister trying to confuse the House with statements regarding riparian rights or foreshore that is bounded by certain land when the issue was always about the foreshore and seabed—an issue he got demonstrably wrong—and why does he not just apologise and resign? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The answer to the latter part of that question is no. In answer to the first part of the question I reply that the questions raised in this House were questioning work in evolution. That has now been completed and the answers are now known to everybody. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Does the Minister accept that it is important that he does not mislead this House or the country? If so given that he said on 2 August as reported in the  
New Zealand Herald 
: “The public has no right to stroll along more than a third of New Zealand’s beaches and large chunks of the foreshore are already held in private ownership. This is revealed in two reports prepared for the Government.” and given that we have now received the official information reports which state the officials actually said: “It is estimated that only a very small amount of privately owned land would extend below the mean high-water mark.” does he now accept that he misled this House and the country; if so what does he intend doing about it? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: No because it was not until 12 December 2003 that Land Information New Zealand had conducted a full interrogation of 6600 kilometres of coastline held in private ownership. The extent of that ownership—as to whether it actually went into the foreshore—had yet to be interrogated. It was important to put the information out as and when it arrived. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why on the  
Holmes  
show did the Minister tell hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders that a third of the foreshore was in private ownership when he had two reports—the first on 18 July and the second on 25 July—that showed quite explicitly in their terms their advice that the amount of land in private ownership in one report was very small and the other was insignificant? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Contrary to what the member has just indicated the official information was that there was no interrogation of title whatsoever in this country and a full interrogation had to occur before one could advise what it was. I advised this House that 6600 kilometres of coastline were in private ownership. That was a third at the time my officials advised me—end of story. 
Dail Jones 
: Did the Minister make a statement about the foreshore without fully understanding the meaning of the word “foreshore” and could he explain to the House today what he actually understands the meaning of that word to be? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: To put the matter beyond doubt and as I have indicated the final interrogation occurred on 12 December and this was released on 13 January after Christmas with regard to final details on foreshore and ownership. Might I put the minds of members of the House to rest by referring them specifically to clause 4 of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. The definition of foreshore and seabed is: “(a) … the marine area that is bounded—(i) on the landward side by the high water line at mean high water spring tides;”. That puts it beyond doubt. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: In respect of a question on foreshore and seabed private ownership on 13 August why did this Minister say that his initial assessment of the level of private ownership was based on advice from Land Information New Zealand when the advice that has today come to light shows exactly the opposite of what he said in this House? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The member is welcome to take from a number of reports that which he desires. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Did the Minister make the statement on 2 August that the public has no right to stroll along more than a third of New Zealand’s beaches and that large chunks of the foreshore and seabed are already held in private ownership when he knew on 25 July and earlier on 18 July that the statement was demonstrably untrue; and given that he misled this House why does he not resign? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: In answer to the second part of that question no that will not be happening. In answer to the first part of the question it is a fact that one-third of the New Zealand coastline is in private hands. It is not a fact that one-third of the foreshore is. We now know that to be true because the interrogation has achieved it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister recall telling the House last year: “I have made information available as it comes to hand in a bid to inform the public of New Zealand at the earliest possible time.”; if so why did he withhold these two reports from his officials when I requested them on 17 September last year until Budget week this year? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: That is absolutely incorrect and misleading. The reality is that when a final report was made available on 12 December— 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister cannot say that. That actually is untrue anyway but the fact is that he cannot use inferences. He should just answer the question and not give an interpretation of what he thinks may or may not have happened. It is quite inaccurate for him to do that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I heard him say that he thought it was incorrect and it was misleading. He is perfectly entitled to say that. If he said “deliberately incorrect” of course that would be wrong. But he said it was incorrect and misleading—I listened carefully. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The member’s view is incorrect and misleading to the extent that the information was made available to me in conclusion by my officials on 12 December—just before Christmas. It would have been inappropriate to have dumped it prior to Christmas. It was released on 13 January and that concluded the matter in the minds of everybody. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In replying to the questions the Minister appears to be reading from a report. I invite him to table the report which was the basis of the statements he made to the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is the Minister quoting from an official document? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I seek leave to table a whole range of documents I am presently referring to. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will do so at the end of the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
:I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.I will settle this matter. [ 
Interruption 
] He is going to table it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am getting sick and tired of this. I sought advice I got it and I said it is usual to table documents at the end of a question. The Minister said he is going to table the documents and he will do that. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked a specific question about a specific document and that has not been dealt with. He can table whatever he likes but you have not responded to the point of order I raised. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the member did he quote from an official document? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I responded from an official document that I have already released to the public but which I am willing to table today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Right that answers the matter. If he wants to table it I will let him table it now since we have interrupted him. Is there any objection to it being tabled? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: There is no leave required. He must table it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He must table it and that is that. 
Document laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With the greatest of respect I am interested in what Mr Tamihere has to say and do on this matter. He said that he would table everything he had in front of him and if there was an official document I assume it would include that. So the point of order was frivolous and wasted the House’s time. Now my supplementary question is this— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Just a moment I want to count up first. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: We are only on question No. 2. I cannot have used my quota yet. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is about whether you can ask your question before another member. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: But nobody is on their feet. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is why the member is getting the call. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: When Mr Tamihere made the statements on 2 August in respect of one-third of the foreshore being in private ownership were we to take from them that (a) he did not know what he was talking about even though he is the Minister for Land Information or (b) that he deliberately misled this House; which of the two conclusions do we take and are either of the conclusions a result that he should resign on? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I would take (c) which was not mentioned which is that I told the House the type of information that I had from my officials. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The first document I wish to table is my specific request—under the Official Information Act—to the Minister for the reports of 18 and 25 July dated 17 September 2003. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I also seek leave to table the Minister’s response this week. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I also seek leave to table those two reports that we received this week—the report of 18 July which was advice specifically sought by the Minister on the amount of private ownership of the foreshore and seabed and a report on 25 July that confirmed the preliminary advice. 
Documents not tabled. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I seek leave to table three documents. One is a copy of  
Hansard 
 of 6 August demonstrating that Dr Nick Smith asked the question that I responded to in light of his question for oral answer today. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Secondly I seek leave to provide a document that was released to Dr Nick Smith in terms of his request under the Official Information Act in its entirety. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What date is that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What date is that? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: It is dated 20 May on the top copy that I have. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is dated 20 May this year. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It was on 24 May that you released it. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Well there it is—the member got it on the 24thGod bless him. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The document is dated 20 May and the member got it on 24th.[ 
Interruption 
] It is dated the 20th and he released it on the 24th.Is there any objection to that being tabled? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: There is Mr Speaker because I have a copy dated the 24th. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is objection. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The next document—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are in the middle of a point of order and the member knows it. He will be leaving the Chamber if he does not behave himself. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The final document that I seek leave to table is a guide to the foreshore and seabed and I commend all members to uplift it and read it. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Standing Order 361 relates to quoting from a document but if he did not so quote then I would invite him to seek leave. But the two documents that I would particularly like him to reveal are the ones that he claimed he had on 2 August 2003 which according to him revealed at that time that one-third of New Zealand beaches and large hunks of the foreshore and seabed are already in private ownership. I say to the Minister that if he has any such document would he please table it and if he does not perhaps he might like to withdraw that remark. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot ask the Minister to table something. The Minister may do so if he wishes but members cannot ask for leave in that way. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: With the greatest of respect I first raised the matter under Standing Order 361. Under Standing Order 361 the Minister is required to table the document. I said that if any of his answers were backed up by the two official documents that he claimed he had on 2 August last year then I require him to table them. If he did not quote from those two documents then I asked him whether he would be kind enough to table them. Then I said that if those two documents do not actually exist—which is the view that most of us have formed—would it not be a good idea to apologise to us all for having claimed that a document exists that does not. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: In answer to the first part of the question I did not refer to the documentation of 2 August. However I seek leave again to table a document which was released under an Official Information Act request to Nick Smith which includes it. I seek leave of the House now to do that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the date on it? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The date on it is 20 May 2004. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: That might be the date when he released something to Mr Smith. What I would like to know is whether the document—[ 
Interruption 
] But that is a cover note. Is it a document that is dated clearly before 2 August 2003? In fact there were supposed to be two such documents according to him. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The answer is yes. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table the Official Information Act request dated 24 May and signed by the Minister for Land Information. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Given that Lianne Dalziel lost her job as Minister of Immigration for deceiving the public in the same way this Minister has misled Parliament the public and all New Zealanders on the most contentious issue of this Parliament how can the Minister possibly keep his job as Minister for Land Information when he has been found to be spreading deliberate misinformation? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The last part three or four words must be withdrawn. The rest of the question is in order. The word “deliberate” must be withdrawn. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I withdraw the word “deliberate” and say “spreading misinformation.” 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The answer to the question is no. I invite the member not to be mean-spirited and naughty. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The last sentence was inappropriate. As far as that is concerned I would have preferred that the Minister just got up and gave the answer in one word as he is perfectly competent and capable of doing. I would like the Minister to withdraw that statement. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I withdraw.