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:17036] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairperson. I appreciate your understanding. Perhaps I was a little hasty in taking a point of order earlier. However this is an important debate and I am keen to make a contribution on behalf of United Future. In my last call I was making concluding remarks about— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise to Larry Baldock for interrupting him but my point is this. Mr Baldock is voting against the legislation and so was the last speaker. On the breakdown of the speaking time that is going this way I point out that one side will get far more time than the other side and that is not fair. I thought the debate went from the pro argument to the anti argument. There are plenty of people on the pro side. We are not short of people to speak for the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No I do not need any assistance on that. Quite frankly I cannot read people’s minds as to whether they are pro or against this legislation. They may change their minds during the course of this Committee. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do want to draw your attention to this disturbing fact. Prior to the last call you drew it to our attention that if you had called Mr Baldock that would have meant that the United Future party was getting more calls than any other party. Presumably that is now the situation. I just say—without criticising people who are not here—to those members who are in the Chamber that one can tell the amount of attention the United Future party gives to this matter by the fact that Mr Baldock is the only member of that party who is here. The ACT party has nearly half its membership here in the Chamber. We have a member who has been calling right since this matter started who has an amendment down—she has taken sufficient care about this matter to put an amendment down. Yet Deborah Coddington has been unable to get a call. In fairness to Mr Baldock and in reply to Mr Peters I note the United Future party has voted both for and against this legislation as it has on other matters. We now learn that Mr Baldock even though he is the only representative of the United Future party here in the Chamber has the call. Why should he be entitled to extra calls just because he complained? When you are looking around the Chamber for members who are calling I hope you will bear in mind the fact that Deborah Coddington has put an amendment down has gone for the call and has not had a call. I hope that will be taken into consideration. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that. I will certainly give those matters consideration. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: We were discussing the issue of entrenchment which is part of the amendment I have on the Table and which has been dismissed by some members of the Committee as being irrelevant or only symbolic. That may be the case in terms of single entrenchment but I ask the Rt Hon Winston Peters to look more seriously at the amendment that provides for double entrenchment which would make it impossible to alter the clause 12 provision by a simple majority. If his party and other members of the Committee supported that a clear signal would be sent and the measure would be more than just symbolic in terms of making it more difficult for future Parliaments to alienate the foreshore and seabed. I appreciated Metiria Turei’s offer to support my amendment if I reciprocated by supporting hers but I am sorry to disappoint her by not being able to do that. One of the reasons we want the entrenchment provision is to ensure there is no opportunity to transfer title of the foreshore and seabed as part of any treaty settlement. We believe that the area ought to remain in the ownership of the Crown for and on behalf of all New Zealanders as we discussed earlier.  
That brings me to clause 15 which gives the Crown the right to “purchase or otherwise acquire the whole or part of a specified freehold interest in any land that is wholly or partly within the foreshore and seabed.” This is something that I believe many New Zealanders are concerned about because we as a country do not take to double standards very easily. Although there has been an intervention by the Government to ensure that there is no future alienation of the foreshore and seabed we all know that there are parcels of land in private title that involve the foreshore of our coastline. I want to read from the Land Information New Zealand report that was given to the Minister for Land Information in December just to put on the record of our debate how many parcels of land are involved and in whose ownership they are. If the report is correct there are 16 parcels in total that are surveyed to below the mean high-water mark. Eleven of those parcels are general land and five parcels are Maori land. There are 32 parcels of seabed in private title that are covered by the sea. Of those 27 parcels are general seabed parcels and five parcels are Maori-owned seabed parcels. There are 12243 parcels surveyed to the mean high-water mark 9403 of which are general land parcels and 2840 Maori land parcels.  
What is important I believe is that the Government is silent about what steps it will take to recover those parts of the foreshore that are in private title. The bill clearly gives it the power to do so but United Future would have been much more encouraged to hear from the Government a strategy it would engage in to recover those titles. We firmly believe that once those titles have been issued they are property rights and there should be no confiscation without compensation. We believe that negotiation needs to be undertaken between the Government and private property owners who now have title that goes into the foreshore. But we would like to know how that would be done so that in the near future New Zealanders can have the satisfaction of knowing that the public foreshore and seabed encompasses the complete coastline of our country and that there is no inconsistency and injustice whereby some people hold a title simply because they got it through erosion in the past because the survey marks were not accurately done in the beginning or because under different legislation 50 to 100 years ago they were able to secure a title that they would not be able to acquire today. That is an issue I would like the Minister to take a call on so that he can give us an understanding of what the Government plans to do—because it is of interest. Many many submitters came before the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee and complained about the inconsistency and the seeming injustice of some people being allowed to own freehold title to the foreshore and seabed while in the future others will be denied that opportunity.  
When it comes to local government holding freehold title the Crown makes it very clear that it will simply take that. I am pleased to see that the Minister’s amendment will now allow not just relief for that but redress. It is acceptable that if a title is in the foreshore area that area would simply become Crown-owned under the legislation because it is the foreshore. But it is unclear to me—and I ask the Minister to explain this to us all—what the case is with regard to reclaimed land that is not yet in title.