Worth Richard: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Worth Richard: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17069] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 When the tumult has died I will talk about Part 3 of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. I will not join with others in expressing the justified outrage at the process that has been followed but wow do we see it writ large in Part 3! Here is a part of 22 clauses; 15 of them have been repealed and there has been no public process leading to that outcome. It is absolutely lamentable. It is a reflection on Dr Cullen who sits in front of us now for interrogation.  
I ask the Minister two things and invite him if he can to respond to them. There is nothing like a challenge perhaps to set the good doctor’s brain in action. The first issue I raise with him relates to new clause 35. Why does clause 35(1) which deals with the jurisdiction of the Maori Land Court refer to the public foreshore and seabed? Should we not be talking about the public foreshore or the seabed? The Minister should surely be aware that when we are talking about the seabed we are talking about areas that go way out to the very edge of the territorial sea and maybe beyond. That is the first question.  
My second question relates to new clause 41 “Limits to jurisdiction of Maori Land Court under this Part”. Clause 41(2) states in respect of customary rights orders that the physical activity or use must be related to “a natural or physical resource.” I was lucky enough to hear the comments Dr Cullen made tonight in the context of the launch of a new New Zealand dictionary. It would be helpful if we had some explanation as to why it is necessary to use the phrase “natural or physical resources”. Is it not the case that all physical resources are natural? These issues emerge in hurried drafting of legislation. In the Resource Management Act where these concepts are well articulated such foot faults do not occur to the same extent.  
For those who listen on the radio to what is going on in relation to the foreshore and seabed I say this legislation is convoluted and complex. The exact scope of the arguments that can be made in respect of it are probably not yet identified. An issue in Part 3 is who should own and control the foreshore and seabed. The foreshore as others have explained is that area of beach covered and uncovered by the tide. So owners who have riparian rights down to the tidemark are unaffected by what the Government proposes in this legislation.  
But I believe—and I am certain I am right—that many in the community are now wholly confused about what the Government is trying to do. If they are concerned then they certainly should be. It is estimated by others including the honourable John Tamihere that about 10 percent of the coastline will be affected by far-reaching proposals that could give management responsibilities to iwi and hapu groups.  
In essence it is proposed that the Crown own the foreshore and seabed subject to Maori custom. There are two basic concepts. Maori can claim territorial customary rights. That is outside this part so I do not take the issue further. The second concept which is directly at issue in connection with Part 3 is that Maori can secure customary rights orders based on tangible activities on the seashore. I say to members of this House that all of this overlooks the reality of a community where Maori and non-Maori have substantially intermingled.