Brownlee Gerry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17008] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 This Part 2 is entitled “Public foreshore and seabed” and it deals with access rights navigation rights fishing rights and a number of other aspects of activity in the public foreshore and seabed. One of the first things it does is to start to scope the limits of those access rights. It starts to talk about how authorities may be empowered to limit access to the public foreshore and seabed. We might say that that is reasonable. If the authority were a port company it would not want everybody strolling through the container yards; if it were a marina then clearly the operators at the marina would need to have some security for the craft located there. There would be other places too where we might say that it is perfectly reasonable for the public to have some limited access.  
We are fascinated by the references in clause 6(2) to issues granted under clause 21. Clause 21 directs us to new clause 62B Protection of sites of significance". There will be sites of significance around New Zealand there is no doubt about that and there might be a place where we might want to say it was not appropriate to go on to the foreshore and seabed. I can think of Maud Island in the Pelorus Sound where there are considerable bird-recovery programmes. Naturally we would want to see that access was somewhat limited—everyone benefits by the limitations put on such access.  
But the “sites of significance” becomes interesting when we start to consider the issue of the reservations that are likely to be set up for Maori. It is a fascinating prospect actually in the 21st century for a country like New Zealand to be creating reservations for Maori—a fascinating way for them to be treated. However when it comes to those reservations we find they are going to be administered by a governance group. The bill is absolutely silent on the structure of those groups—it is left open for the Minister to negotiate with the people who are the beneficiaries of those reserve areas.  
The question then becomes why a group would be administering an area if there were no capacity for them to make some rules about the usage of that area. Quite clearly what we see in new clause 62B is the power that those groups will have to restrict access to what we are now told will be 10 percent or more of the New Zealand coastline. Clause 62B talks about “sites of significance”. Surely any one of those reservations will be considered a site of significance—[ 
Interruption 
]—it is in this part. I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This just shows what a huge mess Parliament is in and how poorly constructed this legislation is. What I am referring to is a reference from clause 21—so we have clause 6 that sends us to clause 21. Clause 21 to be understood requires one to understand what is in new clause 62B.  
 It is new clause 62B(3) that I am most interested in canvassing. It cannot be discussed without a cross reference and for Dr Cullen to sit there and say that we are on the wrong part simply means that he does not have a clue what is in his own bill and it shows what a huge mess Parliament is in because it has not had the time to scrutinise the bill properly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. The member will please continue. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: So members can see that the powers given to the governance or the governors of those reserves is quite considerable and implicit in subsequent provisions of the bill.  
We can also see an interesting little piece here about existing fishing rights reserved. What does that mean? Does it mean that the Ministry of Fisheries can no longer change catch limits around the coastline of the country? Does it mean that the Ministry of Fisheries will have to consult the new nominal owner of the foreshore and seabed the Department of Conservation which has in turn to discuss the matter with the Minister of Maori Affairs and will we see different catch limits made available in reservation areas for the beneficiaries of those areas compared with the rest of the country? The answer is almost certainly yes. Why would any people want to say that although something is theirs and they have governance over it anybody can come and stomp all over it and that even though they sit and meet and charge they still have to do just as they are told by the Minister of Fisheries the Minister of Conservation or the Minister of Maori Affairs? Everyone knows that is not how it will work. Those bodies will see themselves very much as mini - local authorities and in so many ways—although I will acknowledge before Dr Cullen races to his feet that we have not got to this part—this is also the first indication that the veto powers which the National Party has been so concerned about for so long remain in the bill. 
"