Cullen Michael: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17107] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 The amendments in this part very largely reflect the departmental report to the select committee. Very little in this is a reflection of any subsequent negotiations other than the usual governmental machinery processes that occur after a select committee report back. I think we ought to put it in context and it is important to remember that when we are dealing with the foreshore and seabed reserves we have to start from the fact that there is a high test for entry into those reserves. There is a test of continuity—[ 
Interruption 
] I ask the member whether we can just speak for a bit on what I was talking about first—in fact two things one after the other.  
With a foreshore and seabed reserve there is a high test. There is a test of continuity a test of contiguity and a test of exclusive use and occupation. A moment’s deliberation around that will immediately suggest to members if they care to think about it that these are not areas where there are likely to be a very large number of developmental proposals occurring. Almost by definition that is not likely to be the case. So members’ concerns around there being heaps of developmental issues occurring within them are actually not well placed.  
Secondly of course when the reserve is set up the reserve board is not the consenting authority. The board must draw up a management plan and that management plan is in effect incorporated into the coastal plan but the district regional authority and in some cases the unitary council remains the body that is responsible for the Resource Management Act procedures within that in terms of consenting procedures. So it is not a veto power at all. In so far as there is some consideration of veto power it is where there is a question of a severe adverse impact upon the ability to continue to operate a customary right. That is perfectly appropriate. A customary right is a property right. It is perfectly appropriate if somebody proposes to do something that has a severe adverse impact upon a property right for the holder of that property right to be entitled to say no unless there is some form of agreement between that holder and the person making the proposal.  
If parties on the right say they stand for property rights they cannot then turn round and say that somebody else can trample over those property rights without due regard for the interests of the people who hold those property rights. This I think comes back to the sneakiness of the Opposition. Their real position with this—as they know and we know in the Government—is that the vast majority of people who will hold these customary rights in terms of usage which are likely to be quite limited in addition to the fishing rights already protected will be Maori. The main objection from National and ACT is that we are actually protecting rights that will largely be held by Maori. Their view is actually quite clear. Their view is that if that is the case then for some peculiar reason that I do not understand to protect those rights is racist whereas to override rights that are overwhelmingly held by Maori is not racist.  
I think that is just about PC in reverse. It is about as silly as one could go in terms of logic around those kinds of issues. I think that emphasises once again the shallowness of the arguments put forward by National and ACT right the way throughout this debate.