Smith Lockwood: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17006] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 1 of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill I must observe that I just know what the Minister’s former colleague Sir Geoffrey Palmer would think of what is going on in this Parliament. He would consider this I suspect to be a constitutional outrage—and that is what it is. As we look at this bill we see at least 50 percent of it has been amended and that amendment was dumped on this Committee when the debate started. The consultation with the public of New Zealand on this legislation has been almost non-existent. Sure Maori have had a lot of say but the ordinary people who are members of the public in Rodney—where there is a huge coastline and foreshore in the Kaipara Harbour—have had no say on it.  
Today I have heard members of this Parliament refer to this bill as being deeply racist legislation. Members of the Government have denied that but when I look at the wording in Part 1 I see there is no way to escape that conclusion. Members of the Government have suggested that the bill is not racist because in applying to be involved in the administration of a foreshore and seabed reserve the applicant group is open to anyone under clause 4. Sure the definition of “applicant group” does not specify that the applicant group has to be Maori but the courts will have to try to interpret this law and that is why I think what we are doing today is so serious.  
This is new complex law and the way that the courts interpret it could have huge implications for New Zealand. How are they to interpret what an applicant group is? As I understand it a court would look back to the object of the legislation. Let us look back at clause 2A “Object”. We see nothing in that clause to suggest that anyone other than Maori can have any specific interests because what is protected under the object is “the association of whanau hapu and iwi with areas of the public foreshore and seabed”. How is a court to interpret that that means anything other than Maori? My family is not whanau or hapu. Those terms relate to Maori families and extended families. So clearly as we look at the object of this bill—even though it does not state this because the Government is trying to make it look as though this is not deeply racist legislation—we see an applicant group will have to be Maori.  
I look further in clause 4 at the issue of who is to administer those foreshore and seabed reserves. I think I even heard the Minister in the chair say that the High Court will be involved in the appointment of the members of the boards—the governors. When I look at clause 4 I see it states the members “are appointed in accordance with section 34E”. Does clause 34E spell out how the members of those boards are to be appointed? No it does not. All that clause states is that the High Court confirms appointments. This kind of law I believe is quite new for New Zealand and to be ramming it through under urgency even though it will provide huge opportunity for the courts to interpret what this Parliament is saying is a new kind of arrogance that surpasses even that of Dr Cullen who was certainly not dealt a short suit when it came to arrogance. This surpasses anything that I have seen.  
I come back to the fundamental concern I have with this bill which is that it is a new kind of law because the object makes it very clear that some of these measures are designed for Maori yet some of the specific clauses try to pretend that that is not the case. How the courts will balance up the conflicting elements of this legislation and sort that out in the future is something that this Parliament clearly cannot know. For us to be passing legislation under urgency when we have no idea how a court will interpret what we are doing is dangerous for the future of our country and it should be opposed.