Brownlee Gerry: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21887] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 This is the part that is arguably the part we should pay the greatest attention to. It deals with various authorities and protocols that are to exist between Crown agencies and Nga Rauru Kitahi from this point. 
It also lists a number of redress properties that are to pass to this group as part of the settlement. I note that one of them is the Waiinu Beach site. The site ceases to be a conservation area under the Conservation Act 1987 and the fee simple estate in the Waiinu Beach site is vested in the governance entity for Nga Rauru Kitahi claim settlement. Given that the word “beach” is specifically used here and given that throughout the time we were looking at the seabed and foreshore legislation we were told that the beach is according to the dictionary the part of the coastline that gets wet sometimes due to tidal activities I would like to know whether the Government is in fact proposing to give away the fee simple title to part of the foreshore and seabed of New Zealand. National members notice and would recognise that there is nothing at all in the Foreshore and Seabed Act that prevents the Government from doing exactly that. We are aware that the Government is engaged in significant negotiations around other parts of the country with a proposal to see this sort of arrangement entered into. I understand that the particular site is not particularly large but that is somewhat irrelevant if in fact it is a piece of coastline that has a fee simple title attached to it and if that title is transferred as part of a treaty settlement. 
This part of the bill also deals with the statutory acknowledgments for the purposes of achieving the redress. There is a clause clause 43 that requires the Environment Court to have regard to statutory acknowledgments. Clause 43(1) states: “From the effective date the Environment Court must have regard to a statutory acknowledgement relating to a statutory area in determining under section 274 of the Resource Management Act 1991 whether the governance entity is a person having an interest in the proceedings greater than the public generally in respect of an application for a resource consent for activities within adjacent to or impacting directly on the statutory area.” It would be interesting to hear from the Minister exactly what that means. Clause 43(2) specifically does not limit the obligations of the Environment Court under the Resource Management Act. That is possibly—and this was discussed at the select committee as well—quite contradictory and I think it is necessary for the Minister to place on the  
Hansard 
 record exactly what the Government thinks it means so that the rest of us can be enlightened as to the particular benefit that accrues to the settling party as a result of that part. 
So there are two questions for the Minister. What is the Waiinu Beach site all about? Does it mean that the Government is transferring a fee simple interest in part of the coastline of this country to this group? And secondly does clause 43 confer extra duties on the Environment Court in terms of the particular rohe of this iwi when it comes to hearing matters that are part of resource applications? 
Further to that what is the situation when an application is made that does not find its way to the Environment Court? That is I think the nub of the issue that National members have been raising for some time—that many of these statutory acknowledgments etc. give the various Maori groupings quite a say in the nature of resource consents or in fact the nature of how any district might eventually develop regardless of the size of the grouping’s particular interest in that area. So we want to know two things: what are the limits on the court and what if an application does not get to a court? What are the obligations then on the local authorities that have the responsibility to issue consents—and it is a responsibility on them to issue consents—when applications are made? 
I notice also that quite a considerable duty is put upon the relevant consent authorities to distribute to Nga Rauru Kitahi resource consent applications. I find that just a little bit strange. Does it mean that if someone makes a proposal for some development inside this rohe area that person not only has to get a consent from the local authority—and it does not specify which local authority; it could be the regional authority or the district authority—but also has to gain consent from the iwi themselves? This clause clause 46 is quite a strongly worded clause. I see from subclause (3)(a) that the governance entity is allowed to “waive its rights to be notified under this section;” but the provision also allows it to “(b) state the scope of that waiver and the period it applies for.” In other words it might determine that particular applications under a particular value do not have to go to it for the period of the next 3 years or until it is reviewed or whatever. But it would seem that there is an opportunity for it to determine when it will have quite a large say on any particular project. 
 Also clause 46(5) states: “This section does not affect the obligation of a consent authority to—(a) notify an application in accordance with sections 93 and 94C of the Resource Management Act 1991: (b) form an opinion as to whether the governance entity is a person that is likely to be adversely affected under those sections.” Of course those administering the Resource Management Act must consider the adverse effects on the grouping because that is in the law at the moment but that tends to make me think that the previous four subclauses in clause 46 create an additional opportunity for the governance entity—an opportunity that other New Zealanders simply do not have. So we ask the Minister to make that explanation as well. That is three things. 
There is also the curious clause 50 “Termination of deed of recognition”. What does that mean? That is a simple question that we would like the Minister to answer. If some recognition relating to some particular deed is part of a settlement why would that recognition terminate? Then there is the issue of clause 51 “Statutory acknowledgements in relation to rivers”. That clause does not seem to be at all clear. I notice that the clause states that artificial watercourses are not part of that particular acknowledgment. I want the Minister to tell us what work has been done to work out what is artificial and what is not. Literally hundreds of small rivers creeks and streams around this country have been moved because it was convenient to move them. It is interesting to see when we fly over this country how many rivers or little streams loop around themselves and quite clearly have been diverted either for irrigation purposes some years ago or for the purpose of gaining a better section of land that is unbroken by that watercourse. It would seem that although a watercourse may be somewhat artificial in direction it is not at all artificial in so much as water flows along it.