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:17076] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 First of all I will make a few comments in regard to Mr Ken Shirley’s earlier speech in which he clearly confused the Resource Management Act with this legislation. I do not disagree that there are still problems in the Resource Management Act regarding its application of the metaphysical—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes we understand that but this is dealing with the problem the member raised because the clauses that have been read out several times for the member to pay attention to state that customary rights orders must not be made in respect of an activity use or practice on the basis of spiritual or cultural association unless that association is manifested by the relevant hapu or iwi in a physical activity or use related to a natural physical resource. That has been read to Mr Shirley a number of times.  
We are grateful that that provision is in there but it is ridiculous to take it too far. It is right that we respect the spiritual values of Maoridom in this country when it comes to their burial sites and the things that relate to physical resources. That point has been made very clearly. It is interesting that the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope is the Minister responsible for the Resource Management Act reform because United Future is concerned about the unresolved issues around the Resource Management Act when it deals with the metaphysical. But we will have that debate on another day.  
I will address the rest of my comments to the points that have been raised by Metiria Turei from the Green Party in regard to clause 49 “Application to vary or cancel orders”. I challenge members of the Maori caucus to respond to the points she made and the ones that I will raise also because they are good examples of the problems with the process. These are large alterations to the legislation. Quite frankly I would rather have heard from submitters on the issues rather than having them debated in the Chamber in this manner but since we are having the debate I think it behoves the Maori caucus members to respond to the concerns.  
The Hon Dover Samuels will remember that when we were together in the select committee we discussed these issues. We were concerned about how easy it was for a member of a hapu or iwi or even a whanau to be able to present themselves to the Maori Land Court and trade away customary rights orders without necessarily having the correct mandate. When we worked together on the previous legislation in the specially convened committee in regard to the Maori Fisheries Act it was the view of Mr Samuels—and I supported him in it—that we needed to make much tougher conditions on various mandated iwi organisations around the country before they could trade away their rights in terms of their allocation of fishery assets and so on. We made the conditions much more onerous because we wanted to protect as much as possible for future generations.  
I concur with and have sympathy with the points Metiria Turei raised. It still seems far too easy for someone to appear before the Maori Land Court and see those customary rights orders—which will take considerable effort to obtain—cancelled and traded away. I do not see why they need to be traded away at all. I do not see why they cannot enter into an agreement with someone who wants to carry out an activity that may have an impact upon their customary rights order without necessarily trading the order away completely. Surely it would be possible for there to be a recognised legal agreement to enable an activity to carry on for the length of a consent period without necessarily removing it for all time. Therefore if the activity ceased at some stage or the resource consent that was granted for the activity expired then the customary rights order would return to the hapu the iwi or the whanau and they would be able to exercise it again. I ask a member from the Maori caucus to take a call in the debate—we are far from the end of the debate on this part I hope—and respond to those concerns because if there is a need for further amendments I believe now is the time for us to address them.