Carter John: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Carter John: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13081] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party to support this legislation. It is a local bill and there is nothing controversial about it at all. I commend the Minister whose name the bill is in for the work that has been done on it. 
I have one or two things that are probably worthy of comment—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes there are. I am sure there are two things worthy of comment. Firstly the Minister who spoke on this legislation has already made the comment—and it is worth reemphasising it—that the present legislation will indeed take care of any concerns expressed by submissioners who were worried that the council might be allowed to run away and do some hip hops or something with the money it received from any sale. That cannot happen under the Local Government Act or the bill as they preclude any suggestion of untoward action by councils. In other words councils will be as good or bad as they are in anything else they do. 
The other thing of interest—and I mean this seriously—is that we need to consider given that the foreshore and seabed legislation is before us whether that legislation will have any impact on any of this particular land. The Minister is nodding her head and saying no but one of the things we are not certain about is how wide the foreshore and seabed legislation is and what impact it will have. As that legislation develops we may well find— 
Hon John Tamihere 
: It would impact on your mother. 
JOHN CARTER 
: No this is not a “mother” speech. Mum has not read the foreshore and seabed legislation but she will be appalled by it when she does get to see it along with all other mothers and fathers in New Zealand. 
The problem we have with the foreshore and seabed legislation is that because we are uncertain exactly what it means and because its intent needs to be a lot clearer we may find that while we think that the legislation we are passing now is clear gives direction and comes under the auspices of the present Local Government Act the foreshore and seabed legislation when actually passed may interfere in some way with the intent of this bill. 
I tell the House that we need to put that qualifier on it. There are things in the foreshore and seabed legislation that we are uncertain of. We seriously do not know how wide the changes to the Resource Management Act will be under that legislation. Until the legislation is developed those changes will probably not be known until such time as it goes through a court process and that may be some years away. However we might find that that bill will come back to haunt us with regard to this sort of legislation. It may well put restrictions limitations and impositions on local government and as a consequence on this sort of bill which I am sure the House will support. 
 Of course the other thing we are uncertain of is just how wide and far-reaching the foreshore and seabed legislation as put down by the present Government with the support of New Zealand First will be with regard to foreshore issues of which this is part. When we look at the wider issue we see that once again we do not yet know. The issues around “cultural connection” are undefined. Nobody knows entirely what that means. We have to wait and see what those definitions mean. As we pass this sort of legislation we should be bearing in mind that this other legislation that is before the House has wide ramifications and may well impose restrict or influence the outcome of the legislation we are debating today. 
As the select committee that is dealing with the foreshore and seabed legislation grapples with those problems to try to get some clearer definition of the things that New Zealanders are worried about in the bill and the fact that it might impact on their private property or interfere with their ability to enjoy an afternoon picnic at a beach— 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This speech is totally irrelevant to the bill before us. After all this bill has a title and therefore the Foreshore and Seabed Bill would not apply. There is nothing in this bill about the Foreshore and Seabed Bill and I ask the member to return to the Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It does concern a part of the foreshore. That is what the bill is all about. I am quite comfortable to let the member wander over the issue of the foreshore and seabed. 
JOHN CARTER 
: If the member actually read this bill he would see that it is about reclamation. The member may not know but reclamation— 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Where in this bill is the word “foreshore” used? I would like to know that because there is no reference to the foreshore in this particular bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I have ruled on that point of order. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Obviously the member is a bit nervous about the foreshore and seabed legislation that he supports. He does not want anyone to talk about it and that is why he is trying to shut down my contribution. 
The point I am making to Dail Jones who raised the point of order expressing concern and hoping that no one would notice that New Zealand First supports the Foreshore and Seabed Bill is that so many things are unclear in the foreshore and seabed legislation. As we pass legislation such as this the House needs to take into consideration the impact that that legislation could have on a bill like this one. 
I say to Dail Jones and to his colleagues in New Zealand First that they should take great care as they support the foreshore and seabed legislation as to what impact it could have and what the detrimental effects might be. What impact might the term “cultural connection” in the Foreshore and Seabed Bill have on this sort of legislation? I think that is a reasonable question to ask. It is a debating point and not one that tends to allow a restriction on the bill before us. 
This is a very good bill. The House will pass it and so it should. However I just say that as we debate it today we need to take into consideration all the other legislation that is before the House and in particular the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. I believe that that bill is likely to come back and cause this House and this country some significant problems because of the way it is written and the impact it is likely to have. I say that we need to be aware of that. As we pass this bill through the House the select committee looking after the Foreshore and Seabed Bill will surely want to consider those things with regard to this sort of legislation.