Baldock Larry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Baldock Larry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16979] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 It is not surprising that when the Hon Nick Smith a former Minister of Conservation leaps to his feet to give his first speech in this debate the first question out of his mouth is: “What about marine reserves?”. It seems that whenever people get anywhere near the Department of Conservation they start thinking about grab grab grabbing marine reserves and more estate for the department from all around the country. So that was the first question out of his mouth. 
The answer to his question from my reading of the bill is that it would probably be up to the guardians of the new reserves to determine whether there would be marine reserves within the new reserves. I think that is a jolly good idea. A lot of New Zealanders would like to see more control over their inshore area rather than see the Department of Conservation slapping marine reserves all over the place wherever it thinks it can protect this wonderful environment. So I do not see that it is a bad thing at all that this bill gives more control back to the people of New Zealand. 
In fact that is largely what clause 2A is all about. United Future welcomes the amendment from the Deputy Prime Minister to introduce clause 2A “Object” which states: “The object of this Act is to preserve the public foreshore and seabed in perpetuity as the common heritage of all New Zealanders in a way that enables the protection by the Crown of the public foreshore and seabed on behalf of all the people of New Zealand”. We could almost have taken that statement and put it under the interpretation clause clause 4 with the heading “Public domain”. I think it is a pretty good definition of the concept of public domain that we were talking about in the very beginning. 
So United Future will be supporting this amendment because we think it goes a long way towards calming the people of New Zealand down about what is going on in this legislation and this debate. It is not just about Crown ownership as has been claimed by Winston Peters and New Zealand First. I think the definition has broadened out considerably and that is a good thing. As my colleague Gordon Copeland said earlier the idea of Crown ownership has carried with it some negative connotations. It is important for us to speak about it being for the benefit of all New Zealanders—the common heritage of all New Zealanders. Those are very good words. 
The amendment further provides that the object of the bill is to protect or preserve the foreshore and seabed in perpetuity which is why I have tabled this morning an amendment to entrench clause 12(2)(a) when we come to debate Part 2 later on so that this Parliament does all we can to make sure that it is very difficult for any future Parliament to sell off or transfer the title of the foreshore and seabed to anybody else. It will be held in perpetuity as the common heritage of all New Zealanders. I think that will be a very very good thing. I will be asking all the parties in the Committee to support that Supplementary Order Paper when we vote on Part 2 later on. 
Clause 2A also includes the concept that the Crown is to protect the public foreshore. Crown ownership is for the protection of the public foreshore on behalf of all New Zealanders. I think it is time to begin to discuss that in our debate. There is not enough going on to protect the foreshore and seabed in New Zealand. We are prepared to march to Wellington about the ownership of it but the crucial issue is what is going on there. Pollution is still occurring. Siltation is still occurring from run-off from the land. There is pollution in all sorts of forms. Raw sewage is still going into our sea and siltation occurs every year in the construction season. We create siltation ponds that are not adequately monitored then when we get a bit of extra rain one summer—as happened this year—the entire Tauranga harbour turns brown because suddenly a huge amount of clay goes into it and destroys that pristine foreshore that we all like to walk on and enjoy. Instead of having sand to walk on we have mudflats all over the place. It is a disgrace. 
Instead of having such a huge fight about the title and the ownership we should be having a big debate about doing more to protect these areas. Our regional councils are not monitoring those issues and are not imposing fines on the people who are polluters of the foreshore and seabed area. I hope that when the bill finally becomes law the Crown will take up its responsibility to do a lot more about protection. Protection is not just about imposing marine reserves because there is no point in having marine reserves for the protection of our seabed and marine environment if we have pollution flowing off the land. It is even coming out of the Department of Conservation estate and nothing is being done about it.