Smith Nick: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Smith Nick: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17151] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 That was an extraordinary contribution from the Minister of Maori Affairs and it showed just how confusing this legislation is even after 48 hours of debate on it. I want to cover three particular points because we are no wiser today than we were on Tuesday evening when the 138 pages of bill plus Supplementary Order Paper were tabled without response. 
My first point is that Labour Maori caucus members have said to their constituency that the legislation will deliver 10 percent or more of the foreshore and seabed as reserves. That is what they are claiming on the front page of the  
New Zealand Herald 
. Either they are telling something different to other New Zealanders— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Who would read that? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well we are actually believing the Labour Maori caucus and what they say comes as no surprise. I come to Winston Peters. He led a very interesting exchange—[ 
Interruption 
]  
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is a robust debate. Interjections are welcome but not of that nature. They will cease now. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The second confusion is this. I asked a very simple question. In relation to the new idea of foreshore reserves can there be a marine reserve in the same place as a foreshore reserve? Can there be an aquaculture marine area? Nanaia Mahuta from the Labour Party told us yes. I shall read the transcript. I asked the question: “Can there be a marine reserve and a foreshore reserve in the same area?”. Winston Peters said—and I shall quote from  
Hansard 
—“Of course not.” That is what he said yesterday. That is what  
Hansard 
 states in black and white. He went even further. He said I was a fool and an idiot to suggest that they can be in the same area. Yet Nanaia Mahuta has told us the opposite. The man who takes credit for the legislation who says he has been intricately involved in the drafting of it says a foreshore and seabed reserve cannot be in the same place as a marine reserve. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If the trustees agree. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Today he says if the trustees agree. Well that is not what he said yesterday. He should read his  
Hansard 
. He has no damn idea of the legislation that he has spoken of. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Surely you cannot allow that member to get away with what he has just done. We know that he is frenetic and sort of hectic but he cannot get away with throwing papers at another member. I reckon that it is about time his whip got him under control. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising that. That did happen. The paper was partly passed and partly thrown. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yesterday he said exactly the opposite. Any member who reads  
Hansard 
 will know that that member said one thing yesterday and something different today. 
We then come to the issue of wahi tapu. Members on this side respect the fact that there are burial grounds and other customary rights that need to be recognised. However this legislation has provisions that are so broad and so wide-ranging that any old thing will get by. We already know that wahi tapu under the definition that is provided are any areas that are of spiritual significance to Maori—and I tell Mr Samuels that there are Maori who have said that Ninety Mile Beach is of spiritual significance; they have claimed that—and that will be determined by the Maori Land Court. Dail Jones gave an extraordinary speech in the Committee stage about the Maori Land Court. Basically he told the Committee that we should have no confidence in its capacity to make fair judgments on those very issues. The significance of that is this: those wahi tapu provisions will see ordinary New Zealanders excluded from those areas of foreshore and seabed. 
So after 2 days of debate under this appalling process whereby 138 pages of law have been dumped on this Committee we still do not know for sure what we are passing. We still do not know. One person is saying one thing and another person is saying another thing in respect of how many areas will be foreshore reserves. It is a completely new concept. I am pretty sure that before Tuesday no New Zealander council or anybody had even heard of the idea of foreshore and seabed reserves and the Government will make them law today. The Labour Maori caucus is saying that they will apply to over 10 percent of foreshore and seabed—4 million hectares. I ask Margaret Wilson whether the Labour Maori caucus is correct in saying that they will cover 10-plus percent. The Minister is absolutely silent. New Zealanders have been told on the front page of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 that the Labour Maori caucus is claiming that 10-plus percent will be set aside for foreshore reserves. The Labour Maori caucus knows but Margaret Wilson does not. 
We need answers to those sorts of basic questions and the reason National is opposed to this law is that it is a political con job. It is a political con job that completely fails to provide the sort of framework for all New Zealanders that will ensure our foreshore and seabed are properly managed. We are creating an array of new legal mechanisms that will create confusion and provide a field day for lawyers and the worst thing is that our foreshore and seabed will not be properly managed as a consequence. It is confusing contradictory and an absolute mess. I look forward to the next National Government fixing up this mess so that we can have foreshore and seabed legislation of which we can be proud.