Franks Stephen: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17017] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 This part of the bill that the chairman of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee has just been explaining does to some extent reflect existing law. But it goes further. Indeed Dr Cullen’s intervention when he tried to explain why a provision stated not only the obvious but in fact cast doubt on the obvious I think exaggerated the problem that has been created. Some poor judge some day will probably pour through that contribution to this debate in an attempt to work out whether in fact there was an assumption by the drafters or by this Committee that clause 12(1) did prevent or tried to affect a subsequent Parliament and that we wanted to make it clear or whether there was some sort of developing doctrine that Parliament could bind future Parliaments. I am sure that Dr Cullen’s address on the matter will have helped.  
But what is not clear is why this part then goes on and tries to trample all over the idea that the Crown’s ownership is normal full absolute ownership by cancelling the Crown’s computer-generated titles. The Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Michael Cullen could I am sure explain just what is intended by that. Is it some kind of vandal’s assurance—some notion that if we cancel the computer entries that show the boundaries of what the Crown owns which is just what a title is—that it is a deeply emphatic statement that the Crown never intends to do anything with it? If that is the case then New Zealand as well as Maori are losing badly by this move.  
There is a great temptation in this House to make bold statements about the seabed and foreshore never being available for any kind of alienation. In fact every community in this country will have projects that will require them to come to this House and get a special Act of Parliament to allow them to finance and achieve outcomes on what is currently public foreshore. The reason is that most of New Zealand’s coast is not the kind of iconic beach that this debate focuses on. It does not provide great fishing spots. Much of it is land that is eroding. Much of it is land where people will want to protect existing boundaries. They will have works that are not just breastworks for marinas or ports; there will be roads to quarry and all kinds of works to undertake that this will complicate— 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Below the low-tide mark? 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Below the mean height—of course there are. I can think of an area very close to my place in the Wairarapa where the legal road has disappeared into the sea but the actual road being used gets moved probably every 3 or 4 years.  
This bill states that even legal roads will disappear if they are not used. It does not state for how long. A road could be blocked for a week. According to this the Crown could say: “Sorry you’re trumped—off you go.” Why does the bill not define how long the period of disuse is—because this is a great fat confiscation to make a political statement? 
 The Minister in the chair Dr Cullen is leaning back looking amused by this—probably because he is thinking: “These are the arguments I made to my colleagues but they were too stupid to listen.” He is probably thinking that this sounds very similar—[ 
Interruption 
] I see we have stirred Mr Peters into action. He is saying: “These are the arguments that Dr Cullen was making to me but I was too politically cunning to pay any attention because they are simply rhetorical.”  
Part 2 is going to be very expensive for communities all over New Zealand. Part 2 states that not only does the Crown own it absolutely but in response to Nanaia Mahuta it does not have to have regard to any fiduciary interests. I could not understand Nanaia Mahuta’s speech earlier today when she said that the Crown held as a fiduciary. This bill expressly states that it does not hold as a fiduciary. It holds absolutely as the Crown—in fact the old-fashioned imperial Crown from the look of it because I cannot imagine what other purposes it would have held for other than as a fiduciary for the people of New Zealand but this bill states that it does not.  
That will make it much easier for the Crown in defeating opportunistic claims but why is it that the Crown has to grab all of the existing property interests other than those that are expressly private? Why do local authorities have to turn up cap in hand and go to the Minister of Conservation? He is not required to pay them proper compensation.