Baldock Larry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Baldock Larry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17130] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to address some comments to clause 112 which is the clause that allows for agreements directly between the Minister and claimants—we assume Maori groups—who are seeking a territorial customary right under the court process. 
The bill in the form it was introduced and referred to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee contained a clause 112 of about five or six lines that provided quite wide scope for Ministers—it did not identify which ones—to “enter into an agreement with a group to recognise that but for the vesting of the full legal and beneficial ownership of the public foreshore and seabed in the Crown by section 11 that group would have held territorial customary rights over a specified area of the public foreshore and seabed.” Understandably this provision caused a great deal of concern because it raised the issue of backroom deals whereby the Government in order to try to calm down many of the objections to this legislation might dish out lollipops to some extent to try to gain back favour amongst particularly the Maori community. 
I think many people have called for Maori to have their day in court over this issue. Although many people in the land do not necessarily believe that Maori should have the right to foreshore and seabed title they have been upset by the cutting across of due process which would have enabled Maori to go to court to check it out. Clause 112 was a complete contradiction to that. Rather than their being given the right to go to court they would have the right to go to the Minister and perhaps seek a backroom deal. It is good to see that there is an amendment that makes it a lot more transparent. I do not think it goes the whole way to answer some of the critics but it makes some improvement. 
But I want to say first of all that although many have called for Maori to have their day in court I believe that what ought to have happened in the very beginning was that the Crown should have had its day in court. When the Court of Appeal made its decision it ought to have been the Crown first of all that went off to the Privy Council to have that decision tested thoroughly at the highest court in the land at that particular time. The ruling of the Court of Appeal that overturned the long-held understanding under the Ninety Mile Beach case would have been tested out thoroughly and then the Government having established that fact clearly in law could have proceeded to introduce legislation if it needed based upon the fact that everyone had had his or her day in court. Really the Crown was the one that should have led that case.  
 Many of us were under the impression or at least I was that the appeal by Port Marlborough to the Privy Council was going to give some satisfaction in that regard until during the select committee I learnt that its basis for appeal to the Privy Council was not as clear as many had understood it to be and that it would test only a small part of the Court of Appeal decision. Had that appeal gone to the Privy Council and a decision been made it still would have left some unanswered questions. Many submitters to the select committee urged the committee to wait until 15 or 16 November when the first hearing was to be held—and it possibly would have been 6 weeks after that before any ruling was given—but then we found even before we got to 15 or 16 November that Port Marlborough had withdrawn its application to the Privy Council. 
So these questions will never be answered. I think one of the concerns about the legislation is that there are some unresolved questions around the country that people will not get satisfaction over and they will therefore make up their own minds and draw their own conclusions about the justice of this issue. I think that is regrettable. This issue is important. We are seeing already as was mentioned in the news this morning that people are taking crazy action over this legislation. United Future is very concerned that because of the process some people may do some very foolish things around this country that cause all of us to suffer as a result. The only way to have really dealt with this issue was to have taken some more time to make sure that everybody—or at least as many people as possible—was on board with the real facts. I think that the case going to the Privy Council would have helped that process. 
However we are faced with this legislation today. We see that the Minister’s amendments that have been put before us make some improvement to clause 112 whereby at least there will be some transparency.