Baldock Larry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Baldock Larry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17139] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I will follow on from my comments earlier about how I was heartened by the Minister’s amendments to clause 112. I take the gentle rebuke from the National member Georgina te Heuheu that that might indicate United Future is now satisfied with it but that would not be the case. When something is black and one sees it lightening a little it is possible to be heartened by it. That would explain why throughout the voting in the Committee stage members will find that United Future members have been supporting the Minister’s amendments because they do make improvements to the bill. However we have been voting against the parts because they are not yet perfect. There are still things that we are concerned about within each part.  
We are pleased to see that there is a little more openness with regard to this negotiation process for agreements to recognise territorial customary rights but it is not enough. The Green member Jeannette Fitzsimons has made a good point that we would like to see more openness with regard to whom the Government is negotiating with. I think it would be fair for everybody to know. We do not want to see things going on in backroom deals in this country. We will be looking at what results from clause 113 when we see the list finally published of who has received a deal from the Government. We assume that that will be prior to the election next year. We will see who has been given what in order to take the heat out of this situation. 
Stephen Franks 
: What about 115A? 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: Yes I will come to new clause 115A in a moment. I mentioned earlier that at the beginning of this process the Crown really should have had its day in court at the Privy Council so that the decision of the Court of Appeal could have been tested properly. I think though that most New Zealanders could assume that because the Crown did not go there the legal advice was that it would have not have been able to overturn the Court of Appeal decision and we probably would have found that the Privy Council upheld the overturning of the Ninety Mile Beach case. Although we do not have that certainty from having seen that case have its day in court I think that is probably the reality of the situation. That law had been changed therefore something needed to be done about New Zealanders’ rights to public access across our foreshore and seabed.  
With regard to new clause 115A “Status of existing and future agreements between Crown and claimant groups” we have heard lots of claims about what that is. I accept the Minister’s explanation yesterday that it is a very simple clarification and that it does not change anything with regard to what is taking place in treaty negotiations. I think that is what the clause is intended to do. It does raise the issue as to why when National has made so much about this clause it did not support my amendment yesterday to entrench clause 12(2)(b) in order to make it more difficult for a future Parliament to transfer the title of the foreshore and seabed to any other entity. It just does not make sense. National has been going on and on about what could happen and then when it had a chance to do something about it it completely backed down and did not support it.  
I understand the reason for the Government not supporting my amendment. It has made it very clear that it just does not see it as being an issue of constitutional significance. But we never heard that from the National Party. All we heard from it was that nothing should happen that could alienate the foreshore and seabed in the future. New Zealand First’s position is even more confusing. Even this morning Mr Dail Jones came in and said that his party would make sure that alienation could never happen in the future. Yet it did not vote for the entrenching amendment either. It did not even consider the fact that we could have doubly entrenched it so that it was not able to be overturned by a simple majority in the future. That is the kind of doublespeak we get used to on this issue.  
As a result of all that New Zealanders have no assurance that in the future Parliament could not by a simple majority transfer the title of the public foreshore and seabed either to foreign ownership or to a Maori tribal group who claim for that under the treaty clauses. We continue to get doublespeak from New Zealand First and we continue to get a lack of action from the National Party when we could have taken some steps in this debate to achieve something.