Foreshore and Seabed Bill

This Part 2 is entitled “Public foreshore and seabed” and it deals with access rights, navigation rights, fishing rights, and a number of other aspects of activity in the public foreshore and seabed. One of the first things it does, is to start to scope the limits of those access rights. It starts to talk about how authorities may be empowered to limit access to the public foreshore and seabed. We might say that that is reasonable. If the authority were a port company, it would not want everybody strolling through the container yards; if it were a marina, then clearly the operators at the marina would need to have some security for the craft located there. There would be other places too, where we might say that it is perfectly reasonable for the public to have some limited access.

We are fascinated by the references in clause 6(2) to issues granted under clause 21. Clause 21 directs us to new clause 62B, "Protection of sites of significance". There will be sites of significance around New Zealand, there is no doubt about that, and there might be a place where we might want to say it was not appropriate to go on to the foreshore and seabed. I can think of Maud Island, in the Pelorus Sound, where there are considerable bird-recovery programmes. Naturally, we would want to see that access was somewhat limited—everyone benefits by the limitations put on such access.

But the “sites of significance” becomes interesting when we start to consider the issue of the reservations that are likely to be set up for Māori. It is a fascinating prospect, actually, in the 21st century for a country like New Zealand to be creating reservations for Māori—a fascinating way for them to be treated. However, when it comes to those reservations, we find they are going to be administered by a governance group. The bill is absolutely silent on the structure of those groups—it is left open for the Minister to negotiate with the people who are the beneficiaries of those reserve areas.

The question then becomes why a group would be administering an area if there were no capacity for them to make some rules about the usage of that area. Quite clearly what we see in new clause 62B is the power that those groups will have to restrict access to what we are now told will be 10 percent, or more, of the New Zealand coastline. Clause 62B talks about “sites of significance”. Surely any one of those reservations will be considered a site of significance—[Interruption]—it is in this part. I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This just shows what a huge mess Parliament is in, and how poorly constructed this legislation is. What I am referring to is a reference from clause 21—so we have clause 6 that sends us to clause 21. Clause 21, to be understood, requires one to understand what is in new clause 62B.

It is new clause 62B(3) that I am most interested in canvassing. It cannot be discussed without a cross reference, and for Dr Cullen to sit there and say that we are on the wrong part, simply means that he does not have a clue what is in his own bill, and it shows what a huge mess Parliament is in because it has not had the time to scrutinise the bill properly.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order. The member will please continue.

So members can see that the powers given to the governance, or the governors, of those reserves is quite considerable, and implicit in subsequent provisions of the bill.

We can also see an interesting little piece here about existing fishing rights reserved. What does that mean? Does it mean that the Ministry of Fisheries can no longer change catch limits around the coastline of the country? Does it mean that the Ministry of Fisheries will have to consult the new nominal owner of the foreshore and seabed, the Department of Conservation, which has, in turn, to discuss the matter with the Minister of Māori Affairs, and will we see different catch limits made available in reservation areas for the beneficiaries of those areas, compared with the rest of the country? The answer is almost certainly yes. Why would any people want to say that although something is theirs and they have governance over it, anybody can come and stomp all over it, and that even though they sit and meet, and charge, they still have to do just as they are told by the Minister of Fisheries, the Minister of Conservation, or the Minister of Māori Affairs? Everyone knows that is not how it will work. Those bodies will see themselves very much as mini - local authorities, and in so many ways—although I will acknowledge before Dr Cullen races to his feet that we have not got to this part—this is also the first indication that the veto powers, which the National Party has been so concerned about for so long, remain in the bill.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to raise this, but I just need your clarification. We are discussing Part 2. Does that include new Part 2A, or will that be separate?

I can help on that matter. The member will see that there is a Supplementary Order Paper 304 in my name. In Supplementary Order Paper 302, which is also in my name, the draftsperson put in an amendment to insert a new heading Part 2A but did not provide the necessary other wording to actually have a separate part. It has been redrafted. The exact wording of the operative clauses is all the same in both Supplementary Order Papers, except that two typos have been corrected, so members can read either version in terms of the meaning. It is now all part of Part 2. It is a single debate, so the last clause in Part 2 is clause 34G.

When I listen to this unholy confused alliance, and when I listened to the last speech, which was mistaken on every point, it brings to mind the famous words of Jonathan Swift, who said: “When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces of the world are all in confederacy against him.” That is the case with this bill. As clear as daylight in the bill are the fundamental things that matter: the rights of access in clause 6, the right to be on the public foreshore and seabed, the right to enter, remain in, and leave it, the right to pass and repass—all those rights are there, as clear as daylight, except where they are changed by some other Act under clause 6(3). It is the same in clause 7, which sets out the rights of navigation, the right to pass and repass, and the right of passage, except where some other Act circumvents or forecloses on that right. The right, even, to “remain temporarily in a place until wind or weather permits departure or until cargo has been obtained or repairs completed” is a total right when it comes to navigation. New clause 7A, “Existing fishing rights preserved”, states: “Nothing in this Act affects any rights of fishing recognised, immediately before the commencement of this section, by or under an enactment or a rule of law.” It is as plain as daylight. Any right that people may have had, they still have under this legislation, or it lies in other legislation. How about clause 11, “Public foreshore and seabed vested in the Crown”? What could be clearer than that?

Why would National not support that? Why would National line up with the Māori Party, or the Greens, or any other group out there that has no interest in national unity or cohesion? Members should go to clause 12, “Public foreshore and seabed not to be alienated”. That is the reason why National is not happy with this legislation. National has always been dead keen on flogging off this country’s assets to anybody and everybody, whether foreign or local. Public foreshore and seabed—[Interruption] Mr Prebble says that that is his policy, and he is right. The public foreshore and seabed is not to be alienated—it is not to be sold. That is why National opposes the bill. It has always been after the privatisation of somebody else’s resources.

Clause 34B(3) sets out the issue of reserves. It concerns the issue of status in respect of the seabed and foreshore, and the issue of access and the rights of navigation. I have mentioned all those provisions. There is a total assurance to any and every New Zealander that the rights of access and use will not be threatened, at all. So why does the National Party put up its least-qualified person, who has the least understanding of the issue, and make him the No. 1 defender of its position? Where is the great communicator to lead the charge? Do members know why he is not here? He is not here because he cannot front it. He does not have a case or an argument, and he does not have any contentious—

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member cannot talk about the absence of another member.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thought the member might raise that. The member has been here a long time. I suggest he look at Speaker’s ruling 23/7.

Mr Chairperson, to whom do you think I was referring when I referred to the “great communicator” or the great debater? I did not refer to the person National jacked up with the Toastmasters club in June of this year to be called the great communicator. I have not referred to any name or personality, at all. The assumption that the person who does not have the guts to get down here and show himself is the “great communicator” is beyond me—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member has gone too far now. To infer that someone lacks courage is out of order. It is a personal reflection.

But who is it?

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not know who some people may think Mr Peters is referring to. I know that he is referring to the Prime Minister, and I think it was very offensive for him to refer to the Prime Minister as “he” in this Chamber.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): We have had our fun. We have a serious debate here, and members should take a deep breath and get back to it.

It is as clear as daylight to any doubting Thomas that the rights of access, the rights of navigation, and the personal fishing rights of New Zealanders are not attacked or interrupted in any way. The bill specifically sets that out. Just because it clarifies Māori rights and has greater definition as to what they may be does not mean that every other person is threatened. That is fundamental to the bill. It means that there can be some national cohesion and unity on this critical issue.

Not one National Party supporter out there could possibly be happy with the argument that is being mounted by the National Party in the Chamber today—or, rather, the lack of it. That is why the great communicator would not come and communicate. He would not come and debate this legislation.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member may be referring to the Prime Minister or he may be referring to the Leader of the Opposition, but he was clearly referring to a member of Parliament, because only members of Parliament can come here. Therefore his statements are out of order. I think, given the fact that he is now a repeat offender, you should terminate his speech, so we can all go and have lunch.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Mr Prebble always has something to add. I thank him, and again refer the member who was speaking to Speaker’s ruling 23/7. He must not refer to the absence of members.

Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.

Part 2 is, of course, one of the major parts of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, and I anticipate an extensive debate and more than one call on it. In this particular call I shall focus on one particular issue only, which concerns clause 11 on ownership, clause 12 on the fact that the area is not to be alienated, and then how that is tied into new clause 115A on the issue of treaty settlements. I heard this morning on the radio that Mr Peters claims—and I use the word “claims” advisedly—to be protecting the public interest, and that there will be no alienation of the foreshore and seabed. We know, from answers given by the Prime Minister in this House, that that is a false statement. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, also knows that that is a false statement. We know that the Government has made its deal with its own internal opponents in the Māori caucus—a special deal that is contained effectively in clause 115A.

I want to say this. Clause 11 purports to provide for Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed. That clause then immediately states that it is subject to the customary rights provisions of clause 28 and other clauses thereafter. So straight away the idea of absolute ownership on behalf of all the people of New Zealand is immediately compromised—hugely compromised by a whole panoply of customary rights orders. They will be the territorial customary rights orders and the Government’s management plans that go with that. That will hugely compromise the reality of Crown ownership, and it is all set out in subclause (3). So the first point is that when the Government states in clause 11 that it provides for absolute ownership on behalf of the Crown, that is, of itself, compromised within the very same clause by the provisions of subclause (3).

The next issue—and this is more serious—is the link to clause 12, “Public foreshore and seabed not to be alienated”. That, of itself, seems to be a grand promise. After all, this Government, and New Zealand First in particular, have gone up and down the country and said they will protect the public interest by guaranteeing ownership of the foreshore and seabed on behalf of all New Zealanders. They are not true to their word. They have knowingly set up a device whereby the foreshore and seabed will be alienated. They heard in May of this year that the Prime Minister intends to settle treaty grievances by transferring foreshore and seabed to Māori owners. OK, I know that the New Zealand First speakers will say that that takes a special Act of Parliament, and that they will not consent to it. They will say that, but of course they know perfectly well that the Labour Government will go along to the Green Party, the United Future party, or the Māori Party, and get votes from those parties for the alienation of foreshore and seabed for those settlements, so there will be a majority.

What has really happened, in effect, is that New Zealand First has set a process in place in this bill to enable the alienation of the foreshore and seabed. That is actually not some kind of secret. The Prime Minister directly told the nation, through her answers to parliamentary questions in this Chamber, that that is exactly what will happen. I am prepared to bet that the Government will transfer ownership of the west coast harbours—Kāwhia, Aotea, and Raglan—together with much of the East Cape, the Eastern Bay of Plenty, and the far north, estimated by the Māori members to be 10 percent of the New Zealand coastline, to Māori. That will require special Acts of Parliament; I acknowledge that. But that is what the Government will do—and the Green Party will vote for that absolutely consistently, as will the Māori Party. The Labour Party knows that. The reality is that New Zealand First has been duped. It has been duped, and is duping its supporters as a consequence. New Zealand First’s supporters have trusted it.

Debate interrupted.