Baldock Larry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Baldock Larry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16944] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I begin my comments on the second reading of this legislation by acknowledging the hard work done by Russell Fairbrother the chairperson of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee under very difficult circumstances and also by other members of the committee who worked hard in the best interests of the people of New Zealand. It has been a very interesting year in this specially convened committee. 
I also express my thanks to the committee staff who worked long and hard to try to accommodate the submitters in this process and give them the opportunity within the constraints set by the Government to be heard by the committee. A special note of thanks is also due to the committee’s independent adviser who provided invaluable guidance and assistance throughout the process. My thanks go too to the officials who worked hard to provide advice on concerns raised by submitters—advice that was taken seriously by the committee. 
The submission process at the select committee is a very important part of our democracy and it is something that disturbs us a great deal with regard to this particular bill. Of course it has to be balanced and kept in perspective because one submission is only a part of the total picture but it is a vital part of perfecting legislation in this country so it is important to thank those who made submissions on this legislation. Some were very good submissions and many were very impassioned arguments and that is the strength of our democracy. I only hope that no one is tempted after their experience with this bill to take the view that making submissions is a waste of time. 
With all due respect to the Deputy Prime Minister I feel that it is a bit rich for him to have sought leave earlier in the House to table a Clayton’s redline version of the bill and then to say that that was done in a similar manner to what the committee would have done had it been allowed to do its job. He said: “had the committee been allowed to do its job” when we all know that it was not allowed to do its job because of the refusal of the Government to allow any extension to the 5 November deadline on reporting back to the House. 
Being given a short space of time to deal with this bill with all its submissions and controversy was hardly fair to the committee. On many occasions we worked 4 days a week to try to do our best from the date of the closing of submissions on 12 July to the report-back date of 5 November which is not much time to deal with 3946 submissions on such a controversial and passionate issue.  
The political goal of the Government and New Zealand First to pass this legislation before Christmas is the real reason we are here today with such a large Supplementary Order Paper before us. I want to say to the Deputy Prime Minister that process does matter and it is something that United Future has been concerned about throughout the select committee stage. Any leadership that does not understand the importance of process will find after a short period of time that it no longer has the loyal followers it used to have. It is in no one’s interest to see the process shafted somewhat by a rush to pass a bill with indecent haste for no reason other than a political one because when that happens the possibility is that it can cause people to lose confidence in the process and then we all suffer from the apathy of lack of participation. That weakens our democracy. 
I think there are times when urgency is needed to pass legislation. There are times when urgency is legitimately needed there are times when deadlines have to be met and there are times when haste is justified on some occasions—but this is not one of those times. This is definitely not one of them. 
United Future called for an interim report to be given by the select committee to this House so that the people of New Zealand would have an opportunity for more dialogue over the summer months before the committee made its final report early next year. The tabling of a 69-page Supplementary Order Paper by the Minister in charge of the bill indicates how many changes are being made to the legislation and the fact that it has been completed only this morning further underscores the fact that the committee could not have completed a final report back to the House by the deadline of 5 November anyway. 
Changes continue to be made and further changes will be made I am sure as members debate the bill this week. How much better it would have been if the majority of the thousands of submitters had been able to have time to look at those changes before the bill was rushed through the House into law. Many of those changes may well be changes for the good—changes the committee actually recommended rather than changes that New Zealand First demanded as its leader arrogantly claims. However even if the changes are good that does not excuse or negate the affront to the integrity of the process or the frustration and disappointment felt by submitters who engaged in good faith in the process. 
United Future’s position—that of engaging with the Government in the process of addressing the consequence of the Court of Appeal decision in the NgatiApa case—has been clear from the start. It was not an option to do nothing as Peter Dunne made clear on a number of occasions. Despite initial attacks from other parties we took the principled position of ensuring that the foreshore and seabed would be available for all New Zealanders to enjoy. This was implied in the concept of public domain but to suggest that our support for the legislation or engagement in the process could be reduced to a simple discussion about the semantics of a few words is to miss the point entirely along with the commitment we showed during the select committee process to resolving a host of issues raised by the legislation as first introduced into the House and supported by the Government and New Zealand First. 
Because the wording of the bill is now amended to include the concept of public domain and is not simply about Crown ownership the Prime Minister suggested on the radio this morning that somehow we in United Future should now lend our support to the bill—even when the Government has introduced a Supplementary Order Paper of 67 pages with a myriad of changes. That just shows that she underestimates our commitment to supporting only good legislation that is truly in the interests of the people of New Zealand—both Pakeha and Maori and all who have chosen to make this country their home. 
We will not support or oppose legislation based on some gimmick political trickery or political expediency. Certainly we cannot support the second reading of this legislation because it is being reported back to the House by the select committee in the same form in which it was presented at its first reading—and that did not have to happen. After reading hundreds of submissions and listening to submitters I am convinced that of course there is need for substantial change in this bill and we will be engaging in the debate in this Chamber in the next few days. The fact that there is a need for substantial change can reflect only on the measure of how well the Government and New Zealand First did their consultation or listened during their consultation prior to the tabling of the bill on 8 April this year. 
In our report to the select committee I expressed our concern regarding a number of issues in the bill: the rights of access; the removal of common law fishing rights; the Crown claiming reclamations—as was pointed out by the speaker before me Ken Shirley—and ancestral connection orders. It is pleasing to see from analysis of the Supplementary Order Paper that some of those issues are being addressed now as we move into the Committee stage of this bill. 
Another consistent claim from submitters to the select committee surrounded the issue that their concerns about the Crown being trusted not to sell any part of the foreshore or seabed in the future has not been addressed in this legislation. For that reason I will introduce a Supplementary Order Paper myself during the Committee stage which seeks an entrenchment of clause 12(2)(a) by this Parliament so that it will be more difficult for any future Parliament to be able to sell off or transfer the ownership of the foreshore and seabed to any other entity.  
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Double entrenchment? 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: I would certainly welcome a double entrenchment if the member with his party would give us support for that. It would be a very substantive and clear signal to send to the submitters who have that concern particularly in light of ACT’s reputation in the House of selling off important assets considered necessary for the people of New Zealand. 
United Future will not be supporting the second reading of this bill for those reasons but we look forward to ongoing debate through the Committee stage.