Henare Tau: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Henare Tau: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5367] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Clause 22 “Status of conservation areas” states: “Any part of a Te Arawa lakebed or the Crown stratum that is a conservation area under the Conservation Act 1987 ceases to be a conservation area.” Can the Minister in the chair the Hon Mark Burton tell us whether that means the conservation estate will be used to settle claims. If so are we setting a precedent for the Crown to use the conservation estate as a redress tool? I would like him to look at that. 
Also clause 23 is about the vesting of the lake beds. Clause 24 “Freehold estate in lakebeds inalienable” states: “(1) The Trustees of the Te Arawa Lakes Trust must not—(a) dispose of or alienate the freehold estate of all or part of a Te Arawa lakebed; or (b) grant or create a mortgage or other charge in or over all or part of a Te Arawa lakebed.” I am not suggesting for one moment that Te Arawa would do that because they worked very hard to get them back—for 80-odd years. But should they not have the same rights as you and I do when we own fee simple title to a property? I am allowed to sell my property; I have ownership of it. Do we need to tell the other side of the deal that they are not allowed to do that? Is there any reason why that provision is in the bill? 
Clause 26 is entitled “Limits to obligations for weeds attached to lakebeds”. Clauses 25 and 27 also relate to that and I understand them but who is responsible for cleaning up the lakes? Is it Environment Bay of Plenty the Rotorua District Council the Government or a new entity—one made up of the Te Arawa Lakes Trust Environment Bay of Plenty and all the other organisations? How much will the clean-up cost? Or are we there yet? 
The next question to the Minister may seem facetious but it is not. Clause 30 “Boundaries relating to Te Arawa lakebeds” states: “(1) There is a moveable natural boundary between a Te Arawa lakebed and any adjoining land …”. Does that mean that if erosion occurs on the boundaries of a lake that land will become part of the lake; if so what happens when there is an earthquake as is wont to happen in the Tarawera area? 
Clause 35 “Liability” states: “The Trustees of the Te Arawa Lakes Trust are not liable for an existing structure for which they would apart from this section be liable by reason of their ownership of the Te Arawa lakebed …”. So what about a new structure? 
I turn to clause 41 concerning new commercial activities and new structures. That clause is probably the one that leads the National Party to say we will not be supporting the bill. Basically it adds another level of administration or I suppose the power of veto is in the hands of not only those who look after the Resource Management Act but also now the Te Arawa Lakes Trust. It will have the power of veto over new commercial activities and new structures on the lakes. We are not happy about that. If we are to have a society where there is one law for all and we all come under the Resource Management Act then let us have that situation. If somebody wants to build a new structure on a lake does this legislation mean there is to be a regime whereby that person first has to get approval from the lakes trust? When approval is given for that structure does the person then have to toddle off to the district council to try to get a resource consent for it? Or is it vice versa—which comes first? That is what we are not happy about. We would rather see a situation where anybody who is building a new structure or setting up an enterprise or commercial activity on a lake has a one-stop shop. And that obviously would be the Resource Management Act—the same as for any other normal person in our society. That is really the crux of the matter in terms of one of the major issues that we have with regard to this bill. 
If the Minister could address some of the points—not all but some of them—that I have made I would appreciate it very much.