Baldock Larry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Baldock Larry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17015] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to speak on Part 2 and in my first call on the part to address the issue of my amendment on the table with regard to the entrenchment of clause 12(2)(a). After the speech of Dr Wayne Mapp I am almost certain that we will have National Party support for that amendment because he made it very clear that National wants to prevent any future alienation of the foreshore and seabed. So we shall look forward to National’s vote when the vote is taken at the end of this debate.  
After the presentation by the member from New Zealand First I am almost certain that that party too will be supportive of the amendment because its members are known to have been going around the country for some time talking about not selling off the silver in New Zealand. The Rt Hon Winston Peters already said in his speech: “We can’t we won’t we will not sell the beach in New Zealand.” So we look forward to New Zealand First’s support also.  
My amendment is simply to alter clause 12(2)(a) so that instead of the clause saying that any part of the public foreshore and seabed can be sold only by a special Act of Parliament it will require that that special Act is passed by a majority of 75 percent of all members of the House of Representatives. Although it is true—and I agree with the Hon Dr Michael Cullen—that no Parliament can bind a future Parliament a Parliament can make it more difficult for a future Parliament to alienate the foreshore and seabed.  
That is something that many submitters throughout the submission process asked the committee to look into. There was a great deal of suspicion for different reasons on different sides of the issue and a great deal of suspicion about the Crown’s intentions in taking ownership—suspicion that in future the Crown may be tempted to flog it off for short-term gain. I believe that the amendment I am proposing is clearly in response to that request and is a reasonable one. I was hopeful that the Government might have seen that also because the suspicion still remains. If the Government doesn’t support this amendment then people will be wondering whether it intends to do some backroom deals in terms of treaty settlements. 
United Future has no problem with what is now emerging in the bill—the opportunity for a foreshore and seabed reserve to be placed on top of Crown title in order to give a recognition to a territorial customary right—but we would have a concern if a freehold title were being given to Maori because we have made it very clear that no one is to own the foreshore and seabed. So it would certainly send a very clear signal to New Zealanders if the Government supported this amendment and entrenched that particular clause.  
Another part of my amendment would create new clause 114(aa) which concerns the issue of double entrenchment. We would like to get really tough on a future Parliament by not only stating in the Act that the provision has to have 75 percent support which we all know can be amended by simple majority but by also supporting clause 114(aa). That would mean that whatever the majority was passing that clause—and I tell Dr Cullen that I understand from my advice from the Clerk it does not have to be 75 percent—the initial clause of 12(2)(a) would be entrenched to that level. The majority could be 60 percent 70 percent 90 percent or perhaps in this Parliament it could be as much as 100 percent because we have all been hearing speeches—except perhaps from the ACT party—that here there is no intention ever to see the foreshore and seabed alienated. 
So as this amendment is put on the Table I hope the Government might reconsider its position. I am confident of the support of National and New Zealand First and also the Green Party. The Green Party certainly would not want to see the foreshore and seabed sold off in any shape or form. In fact it has a similar amendment although as Dr Cullen pointed out it allows for a treatment different to mine under the treaty clauses. 
I am hopeful we may see my amendment pass. It will mean a great deal. I do not think we need to be hung up on the fact that we are setting a precedent because this Parliament sets precedents all the time. In fact we do that any time we really want to; it is just a question of whether we see the matter as being important enough to do so. If we do not pass the amendment then that raises issues with clause 15 which I will deal with in my next call.