Shirley Ken: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Shirley Ken: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16971] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 As my colleague has already pointed out in this debate Part 1 is racist legislation. But it is not only racist it is actually socialist as well. It is actually racist and socialist. Those members do not mind me calling them socialists—they actually smile and rejoice as I call them socialists. I am not allowed to call them racist we have established that but this Government is bringing both racist and socialist legislation to this Committee and I will explain why.  
This part essentially takes away the right of a group of New Zealanders even to pursue a possible property right through the courts. It takes away the right and strips them of due process. The ACT party defends all property rights and we say that if there are parts of New Zealand where people can establish that they hold a customary title then those people should have the right to pursue that. The point has been made that if they have held it since 1840 and there has not been any problem then what should we be fearful of. How can they answer that question?  
On the one hand this part strips away the rights of some people to pursue that property right but on the other hand it actually creates a tool that is very fearsome. Dr McHugh who was a key adviser to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee made the point that this bill actually gives a lot more to Maori than they would have likely got through the courts. It creates a whole new regime across all the foreshore and seabed that is not confined to any basis of property right but which is race-based law. On the basis of skin colour or ethnicity a group of New Zealanders will have rights through the Resource Management Act to wield powers and controls through the back-door as already we see with land under the Resource Management Act now extended over the whole of the foreshore and seabed.  
To that extent this is lose-lose legislation. It breaches due process. It denies iwi the rights to pursue whether they do hold property rights. That is all the Court of Appeal said in the Ngati Apa case. It said that in some rare and remote instances it may be that they can establish customary title based on having held that land continuously—no more and no less than that. McHugh emphasised that point. He predicted it would be extremely rare. He doubted whether there would be even one or two instances in the country where the High Court would uphold that. But this Government panicked because it was looking at the politics of it not the substance of it.  
There is the Deputy Prime Minister with hands clenched behind his head. He knows that he has the tiger by the tail. He is digging himself deeper and deeper. He knows that he has messed it up. Rather than front up to the country and admit that the Government went down the wrong path the Government is trying to ram it through under urgency and impose this racist and socialist legislation on the whole country.  
The socialists just love it. Here is a way for the Crown to have everything. They would like the Crown to own all the land as well not just all the sea. I have a colleague out on the highways and byways of New Zealand who is fighting this Government because it is trying to find a back-door way to take over all farmers’ land calling it access and taking away property rights on the land. Here we see the Government stripping away potential property rights on the one hand and then creating a new regime that we should all be fearful of and that is this amendment to the Resource Management Act. That is essentially what it is. We are calling it the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. It is actually the “Resource Management Act Amendment (Foreshore and Seabed) Bill.” That is what we should be concentrating on because this mechanism is a disaster. 
 There are expanded powers on the foreshore and seabed in a nebulous form. Spiritualism has been introduced into the management of the foreshore and seabed. There will be taniwha running along the beach in all directions—and who will control it? The Department of Conservation will. We will have all that extra foreshore and seabed all reclamations with that wonderful balanced Department of Conservation controlling it! Can members imagine any developer anyone with a proposal whether it be for a marina or whatever going to the Department of Conservation and getting a fair hearing?