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:17022] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 That was an extraordinary contribution from Margaret Wilson a person who used to give law lectures about unbridled power—[ 
Interruption 
] Old Winston Peters here changes his tune to suit himself. He gets to his feet and cries constitutional outrage when it suits him but suddenly he is in the club. He is in bed with Margaret Wilson trying to push this legislation on to New Zealanders without any sort of proper public process.  
I refer in particular to proposed new clause 7A which shows how this Government talks with a forked tongue. On the one hand— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I ask the member to please be seated. We had a ruling on that this morning. “The Government” and “a member” mean the same thing. I ask the member not to use that phrase. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I wish to say that there are two different songs being sung. The Maori caucus is telling its constituency not to worry because 10 percent of New Zealand’s coastline will be set up in special foreshore and seabed reserves. That is what it is saying. That means that the control of 2000 kilometres will be transferred from democratically elected local and regional councils to iwi. Iwi will be running it. On the other hand others are saying that it will be so difficult to get a foreshore and seabed reserve through the legal tests that Local Government New Zealand and other New Zealanders should not worry because there will be a negligible number of reserves. Which view is correct? 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: So what? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I ask Dover Samuels whether he has been given a reassurance that 10 percent of the coastline will be in foreshore and seabed reserves. Could some other Labour member tell me whether what is on the front page of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 which states that 10 percent of the coast will be in foreshore and seabed reserves is correct? Is what Labour’s Maori caucus saying correct? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: They did not say that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Let us read it then. It states: “The Maori caucus believes …” that the foreshore and seabed reserves “… could yet cover more than 10 percent of the coastline.” Is that what New Zealand First members understand? There is silence. They do not know. We are under urgency being asked to introduce a completely new concept—foreshore and seabed reserves—and we have been told by the Maori caucus that they will make up 10 percent of our coastline. That is hugely significant.  
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: The member has been drinking that V stuff again. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Can Mr Benson-Pope answer me? Can he simply answer the question? Will those areas make up 10 percent?  
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: Calm down. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: He simply will not answer the question. He wants to make all sorts of personal accusations and irrelevancies but he is not prepared to debate the bill. The Labour Party is delivering a con job. It is telling Maori one thing and the rest of New Zealand something different. That will not do. I will give a very practical example. This bill states that somehow fishing rights will not be affected. Let me give members a practical example. In my area Nelson Maori who claim ownership of the Wakapuaka estuary have erected a gate. That is perfectly possible under these new provisions for foreshore and seabed reserves. It is quite possible. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Under the water? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member here is chipping in. He would not know. As a consequence of stopping people from being able to launch their boats at that site those Maori effectively stop fishing rights.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: So it’s on land? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Winston Peters does not know where Wakapuaka is and he does not know about the erection of the gate. The issue has been on TV and is the subject of a petition. If the member cannot sort that out I cannot solve his problems. The fact is that if one can erect a gate and stop people from launching their boats that will control their fishing rights.  
So this new clause 7A which states that nothing in this legislation will affect people’s recreational fishing rights is not worth the paper it is written on. Of course people will be able to erect gates control who gets the key and indirectly control the fishery.  
Government Member 
: That’s not correct. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Why is that not correct? Members opposite cannot explain because they are wrong.