Hon Christopher Finlayson

METIRIA TUREI (Green) to the Minister of Conservation: Does he agree with his department that he is “the Minister who represents the Crown as owner of public foreshore and seabed.”?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister of Conservation: In general terms, yes. The Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 vests ownership of the public foreshore and seabed in the Crown. Section 28 empowers the Minister of Conservation to exercise certain “functions, duties, and powers of the Crown as owner of the public foreshore and seabed.” In relation to the management and regulation of foreshore and seabed activities under the Resource Management Act, those responsibilities will include, for example, approving national coastal policy statements. There are others, as well.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister agree with his department that Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed is the primary reason for his Resource Management Act decision-making role over the coastal marine area?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The issues involving the ability of the Crown to regulate the foreshore and seabed will be the subject of the review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. The Minister is confident that at the conclusion of the review there will be adequate mechanisms in place to ensure that the foreshore and seabed is protected—for example, under the Resource Management Act.

Catherine Delahunty: Does the Minister think it is acceptable that he should have no decision-making authority in applications for councils’ sewage discharges in fragile marine ecosystems, for sand mining in Māui’s dolphin habitat, or for a private marina in a native forested estuary with endangered skinks—indeed, no power to prevent ad hoc privatisation of our foreshore, seabed, and coastal areas?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Minister believes that it is important to look at the suite of powers that he is currently able to exercise as Minister of Conservation. Even if the reforms to the Resource Management Act are carried through, the Minister will still have certain powers in relation to, for example, appointing a person to the hearing committee to consider restricted coastal area applications, approval of coastal plans, and so on. So there will be adequate powers in existence.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister agree with the Environmental Defence Society that his Government’s decision to remove his decision-making authority from the Resource Management Act “will give Regional Councils the ability to permanently alienate” coastal areas; and did he discuss this implication with the Māori Party before it agreed to support the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No, the Minister does not agree with the Environmental Defence Society. He believes that adequate precautions will be in place to ensure that the mischief the member complains of will not be a problem.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister agree that any changes that even further reduce the power of the Minister of Conservation to protect endangered species, fragile habitats, and wild places are a sad step backwards that undermines our guardianship role for future generations and also the multibillion-dollar “clean, green” New Zealand image?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Does the Minister find it ironic that the question line being now pursued is in support of the “public foreshore and seabed”—a term introduced and defined by the Foreshore and Seabed Act—when the principal questioner does not agree that there is such a thing as the public foreshore and seabed, because the foreshore and seabed are owned by Māori?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes, one does see the irony.

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table a number of documents.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a number of documents—[Interruption]

Metiria Turei: This is a point of order; I would expect silence during the point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: I can hear the member clearly. If she proceeds by describing each document, we will seek leave to table each one.

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table a report of the Ministry for the Environment that shows that a threat to a degraded marine environment is a major threat to our billion-dollar export industry.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that report being tabled? There is none.

• Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table a departmental submission from the Department of Conservation dated 16 February 2009, which advises the Minister to recommend against the amendment, with his annotation that discussion amongst Ministers went in a different direction from what the department had advised.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none.

• Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table the 2008 briefing to the incoming Minister, which states that the Minister represents the Crown as the owner of the public foreshore and seabed in his role in Resource Management Act decision-making.

Mr SPEAKER: Can I just check whether this briefing document has been released publicly.

Metiria Turei: Yes, it has.

Mr SPEAKER: It has been released publicly, so leave is being sought to table a document that was recently released publicly. Is there any objection to that? Yes, there is objection to that.

Catherine Delahunty: I seek leave to table a National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research newsletter from April 2007, stating that New Zealand’s coastline is increasingly affected by run-off, sewage disposal, coastal subdivision, and other contaminants.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research newsletter. Is there any objection to that? There is objection to that.