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:17067] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I will follow on in the same vein with the points made by Richard Prebble but with regard to clause 43B. This is a completely new clause. In all the debate around the Foreshore and Seabed Bill the whole issue of wahi tapu has not yet been introduced. Clause 43B includes the capacity for the Maori Land Court to declare areas of the foreshore and seabed as wahi tapu and then—going back to an earlier part—to provide for the exclusion of the public from those areas and for the appointment of wardens.  
The first thing I say to the Committee is that it is a complete tragedy for this Parliament and it shows the arrogance of this Government that it would impose under urgency a provision that was tabled only last evening which will be law before the end of the week. That is an absolute— 
Dail Jones 
: That is not correct. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Clause 43B is a new clause I say to Mr Jones and it provides for wahi tapu.  
Wahi tapu is defined in the Historic Places Act which gives it a definition that we could drive a bus through. It is as broad as one would like. I think New Zealanders have a common-sense respect for burial grounds. But let us be realistic. Will there be burial grounds in the foreshore and the seabed? The seabed is a particularly difficult place in which to have burial grounds. 
Hon Member 
: Not for whales. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Because those provisions are so riddled with politically correct phrases around Maori spiritual values maybe whales can be imposed within them. However where there are burial grounds—wahi tapu—in the foreshore and seabed it will enable the public to be excluded.  
The leader of New Zealand First came down to the Chamber and said that there would be absolute right of access everywhere in respect of the foreshore and seabed. That is not true. There is very specific provision in the bill against it.  
 I would simply like the Minister in the chair to answer the question of how it is possible to have a wahi tapu—based on the definition provided by Waikato University’s Maori affairs department that refers quite specifically to it being a burial ground of human remains—in the foreshore or seabed. There is absolute silence. He has no damn idea at all. Yet again we are being asked— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Swearing little man! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister in the chair expects Parliament to ram through this legislation that will introduce wahi tapu into the foreshore and seabed and will specifically exclude the public. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Jones that it will exclude the public. The provisions are very clear about that.  
With such a wide definition of wahi tapu how do we know what its extent is? How wide is it? We know from our experience with the Historic Places Act that there have been problems all over New Zealand with wahi tapu. Areas of hundreds and hundreds of hectares have been set aside as wahi tapu so much so that the Government has announced a review. Yet the Government is relying on the definition of wahi tapu on land that it has got itself in trouble over to be the definition in this Foreshore and Seabed Bill which will see the public excluded.  
I simply want some member of the Government to explain why the Maori Land Court will determine wahi tapu in the foreshore and seabed. We already have a process whereby the Historic Places Trust is able to declare wahi tapu. Why do we want a dual process? 
Darren Hughes 
: We already know it’s wahi tapu. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The chippy member from I think Otaki—I cannot remember his name—says that that is intended. He says that it was always the plan to have those two different forms of wahi tapu: one through the Historic Places Trust and the other through the Maori Land Court. I do not see any logical reason for doing that. I think it will simply add to the confusion. I do not know why it was not in the original bill. It involves the specific exclusion of the public from areas. Certainly the new wardens that will be involved will have the power to exclude the public. I say that there is no case that can be made for wahi tapu in the foreshore and seabed.