Hide Rodney: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17109] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to support the comments made by the Hon Dr Nick Smith. This is the part for graft and corruption in New Zealand. I want the record to show that New Zealand First voted for this bill which will see large parts of the foreshore and seabed in New Zealand being contested by Maori groups who can then demand money. We heard that from the Minister in the chair a little while ago Dr Cullen. He said that once they have that it is “a property right” and it is only fair and reasonable that hapu whanau and iwi get paid for any diminishing of that right. This is the part that will see large chunks of the foreshore and seabed with Maori having a veto right over any development. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Rubbish! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Mr Barker calls out that it is rubbish but that is exactly what the Minister Michael Cullen said. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: But he’s right; it is rubbish. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It is rubbish. The whole bill is rubbish but Michael Cullen just said that. And we know this: the honourable John Tamihere when he was Minister for Land Information said he felt that something like 10 percent of the foreshore and seabed would be subject to this. He went on TV tonight and said: “Well who knows? It could be a lot more.” And this is what New Zealand First is voting for and this is what this Government is voting for. Rick Barker calls that “rubbish”. Well hang on! Once there is a customary right in the Resource Management Act and someone wants to create an aquaculture farm and someone else to have a development on the foreshore and seabed whose permission do they have to get? They have to get the permission of the council—the territorial authority—and the permission of the iwi hapu or whanau who have that customary title. That is what the Minister said I tell Mr Barker who would have heard that if he had been paying attention. Then Michael Cullen said that it was only right and proper that money changed hands as a consequence. That is what he said. But that is extortion; that is graft; that is what this bill opens up the foreshore and seabed to.  
I say that Michael Cullen stood up in this Parliament and said that it was about property rights. Members should ask themselves what possible property rights are protected or enshrined by the Resource Management Act. That Act is all about undermining people’s property rights. That is what the Resource Management Act is about—and about setting up a political process to control and dictate with interest groups being able to lobby and extort money from legitimate property-right holders. It is not about property rights and I again ask the Government what was wrong with letting Maori have their day in court and stopping all this nonsense of opening up the foreshore and seabed to graft and corruption.  
I want to draw members’ attention to clause 74 “Matters of national importance”. It states: “Section 6 of the principal Act”—that means the Resource Management Act—“is amended by adding after paragraph (f) the following paragraph: (g) the protection of recognised customary activities.” That is a stand-alone clause in the very important Resource Management Act section that deals with matters of national importance. I ask the Minister in the chair Damien O’Connor whether that provision is confined to the foreshore and seabed. I ask the Minister to wake up. I know that it is late for the member but I ask whether clause 74 “Matters of national importance”—by which “the protection of recognised customary activities” is inserted into the Resource Management Act—applies solely to the foreshore and seabed or is generic. “Yes” or “No”? The answer is “Yes”.