Baldock Larry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Baldock Larry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17046] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I will continue on from where I left off in my last call by asking the Minister to give an explanation to the Committee—and I think it would be beneficial to people in local government around the country—of the loss of title by local government to the foreshore and seabed. We understand the reason for that if it concerns the wet part of the foreshore and seabed but can the Minister explain whether compensation will be paid if it is reclaimed land that has not yet gone into private title? In fact can he explain what the bill states about that particular part of the former foreshore and seabed? There is a weird bit of policy running through the bill that has nothing to do with the Ngati Apa issue whereby land that is no longer foreshore and seabed will now be claimed by the Crown and the issuing of private title to it will be prevented. Could the Minister give an explanation of how that will affect local government—even if just for my sake in order to give me an understanding of that?  
In this call I want to speak mostly on clause 34B “Purposes and status of foreshore and seabed reserve”. That is a very interesting and late development in the whole process. It may become contentious in the future not for any negative reason in terms of Maori being able to establish foreshore and seabed reserves in areas where territorial customary rights are established but because other New Zealanders will become pretty jealous of that model. That model seems like a pretty good idea to many people who are concerned about the management of the inshore area—the foreshore and seabed—particularly out to the 4-mile or the 12-mile area. They too would like to be involved in management committees or guardianship roles in that area. We have the precedent of the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment an excellent model established over the last 3 or 4 years. I know that many people particularly recreational fishers are interested in seeing that model expanded around the country. Here we find it expanded under the provisions of this bill and I think that is good.  
I would just like to mention a couple of points. It is reassuring that clause 34B(2) states very clearly: “Neither the guardians of a foreshore and seabed reserve nor the applicant group nor the board is entitled to charge or collect fees or other form of payment from any person or body for the use or occupation of the reserve.” I think that is wonderful; that is the way it ought to be. But then when we go to clause 34C(1)(c) we find that when a board is being set up the persons or bodies to be represented on it must determine “the resources required for the operation of the board and how its costs will be met.” It is very clear that the boards are prohibited from charging people. That is good and reassuring but clearly costs will be involved in the setting-up and ongoing operation of the guardian boards. In fact if we go to clause 34D(1)(v) we see that there is a requirement to set up a policy outlining “the remuneration of members and the payment of members’ out of pocket expenses;”. That begs the question of who will be paying for that.  
I think local government will be interested in that issue. It seems to be made the responsibility of regional councils as under clause 34C(2) it is “the regional council with responsibility under the Resource Management Act 1991 for the area to which the High Court finding relates;” that will have the guiding role in it all. I am sure regional councils will be interested to know whether they will have to pay for the costs which will then come from the ratepayers. While I understand the need for flexibility it is not clear who will pay those costs. I do not see why if we are to give Maori the opportunity to establish those reserves at their request the costs ought not to be borne by Maori. If the policy here is intended to state that Maori must make it clear how they will pay those costs I think that will be acceptable to most New Zealanders. But if in fact the costs are to be paid by ratepayers—if the costs are to be shared by all the residents of the area—then I think local government will be looking very carefully at the make-up of the boards or the guardian entities in order to see that there is fair and equal representation.  
I do not make these comments to suggest that the foreshore and seabed reserves are in any way a bad thing. I think they are a very positive step particularly if that model enables more local control over the establishment of marine reserves. Those reserves are causing huge contention around New Zealand and I think the answer is to allow local people to have local management of such areas.