Smith Nick: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Smith Nick: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17108] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 The Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Michael Cullen is one who has been part of a Government making a commitment to simplify the Resource Management Act because even in the Government’s own commissioned reports that Act has been identified as a major bureaucratic cost for business and a major difficulty for addressing New Zealand’s infrastructure problems. The difficulty with the contribution we just heard from the Minister is that it is completely divorced from reality. 
Let me advise the Minister of the sort of nonsense that is going on in my area. Port Nelson Ltd reclaimed an area of just 4 hectares. Local iwi objected and because they could hold up a port company that is so critical to the wealth of my district that company was forced into doing a deal with iwi whereby 49 percent of the shares in the reclaimed land was vested in a company with themselves—that is there was a transfer of wealth estimated to be worth $2 million from the general public of Nelson to iwi. That was on the basis of a claim of customary rights in an area that is only 1 percent of the Nelson haven. 
This is exactly the sort of consequence that will come out of the provisions of this Government in this part and let me set out why. Iwi have a veto right over resource consents in those areas even though their right may be only as big as: “We launched the waka in that bay 150 years ago.” “We might have collected some hangi stones in that area.” or “We might have collected the odd pipi.” But suddenly iwi are able to use that right and expand it into a multimillion-dollar right. 
If members think the situation in Nelson is unique they need look only at the situation of Fergusson Wharf in Auckland. That concerns a reclamation that is worth over $100 million where equally so those customary rights and powers that are being transferred into the Resource Management Act will result in a huge transfer of wealth. 
It is interesting that the new Minister in the chair Damien O’Connor is one of the people whose constituents have been deprived of value through this very measure. He has been able to avoid questions in the local media but let me put them to him again today: is it fair that his Tasman constituents have wealth worth over a million dollars transferred to 920 people who affiliate to eight iwi? Is that fair and is that what he stands for? He indicates that his answer is “No.” Well why in heck is he supporting the provisions in this bill that will give that sort of leverage to the John Mitchells of the world who advance those sorts of arguments? 
Neither the Minister in the chair nor members opposite can pretend for a moment that they are going to sort out the problems of the Resource Management Act—all the spiritual nonsense and all the ways in which Maori are able to use the Act to gain huge commercial advantage. They cannot say that to their business audiences and in the next moment pass provisions like the ones in this part that give such enormous leverage to those who gain customary rights. 
If I were iwi I would be in there boots and all. I would be claiming those very customary rights in every nook and cranny of New Zealand as would iwi—not because they want to launch the waka not because they want to pick up the odd hangi stone and not because they want to take the odd pipi but because by gaining those customary rights they will be able to hold the wider community to ransom and make a fortune. 
It is a very sad situation indeed. This is a country that should be proud of its lack of corruption. We have long sat right up in the top ranks of countries yet what we see in this part is nothing less than a vehicle for corruption in terms of the way in which resource consents are granted. We will have iwi with their hands out saying to companies that are trying to do reclamations like supports and to Transit that is trying to build roads: “There will be no resource consent unless you pay us off.” I want to hear from members opposite why on earth we would want to make worse the already serious problems we have with the Resource Management Act.