Mapp Wayne: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Mapp Wayne: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17147] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The Government claims in this bill to be protecting the foreshore and seabed on behalf of all New Zealanders. In fact what we have is a device to alienate the foreshore and seabed.  
New Zealand First has failed on two counts. Firstly it does not have one law for all. Secondly it has not stopped the Government from transferring title to the foreshore and seabed to settle claims. The extraordinary thing about it is that the Government is perfectly upfront that that is its intent. It intends to transfer the title just as it transferred Lake Rotorua and the other lakes to Tainui and other claimants. We heard it from the Minister today when he referred to Te Whanau-a-Apanui Ngati Porou Tainui and so forth. That is the Government’s intent and New Zealand First is conniving at it. It does not matter what New Zealand First members say. I am sure Mr Peters will say that they have protected the foreshore and seabed on behalf of all New Zealanders. That is completely false. New Zealand First members have betrayed their own principles by voting for the bill and they will be judged on that fact.  
I draw attention to these points. Why is it that they have failed on the grounds of “one law for all”? They have set up a structure of customary rights that are for Maori only. It does not matter what they say about the Auckland anniversary regatta or anything of that nature. The Minister in the chair Michael Cullen knows because it was stated in the explanatory note of the original bill that only Maori will get them. That is the belief of the Government. Straight away we have divisive law not one law for all. Sure it might be one bill but that bill has separatist law—law for non-Maori law for Maori Maori get customary rights and everyone else fails because of the date chosen. On that point alone New Zealand First has fundamentally failed.  
The second point which is in many ways even more serious is that they are now allowing alienation of the foreshore and seabed in settlements. That is how the Government got the votes of the Maori caucus and quite likely that of Nanaia Mahuta as well. A transfer of that title will now be allowed à la the Rotorua lakes. Members should remember that they have been in Crown ownership for the last 100 years almost on behalf of all New Zealanders. The Government’s intent is to transfer the lakes to Te Arawa and the foreshore and seabed in the West Coast harbours much of the East Cape and eastern Bay of Plenty and much of the far north to the Maori claimants. Those are the facts.  
We know that even when symbolic transfers take place the people assert claims. That has already happened. There are problems around Lake Taupo. That is clear in the evidence on the case involving Lake Rotorua. There will be greater problems around Lake Rotorua. We have learnt those lessons unlike New Zealand First. We intend to have a simple rule which is that the foreshore and seabed will be in Crown ownership on behalf of all New Zealanders with no exceptions whatsoever. That is very clear.  
I turn to a final point. The National Party specifically sought leave to vote for subsection 3 in relation to Bayswater Marina. We sought leave to do that because we wanted to support it. Do members know what the Government did in its arrogance? The Government stopped it. That is typical of the whole process of the last 2 days which included tabling a 67-page document and saying that we should read it over dinner time and then we would know all about it. The media do not get to know. The public do not get to know. The submitters do not get to know. It is typical of the arrogance of the Government.  
It is a sad day when we have to conclude the Committee stage of this day when there are many other members who want calls by referring to the process. The process has been so deeply flawed that Parliament has been denied a proper debate. How can we have a proper debate when immediately before it starts a 67-page document is tabled?