7. METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this
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) Link to this
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.
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 Link to this
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 Link to this
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 Link to this
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.
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 Link to this
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.
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 Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
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?
Mr SPEAKERI can hear the member clearly. If she proceeds by describing each document, we will seek leave to table each one.
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.
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.
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.
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 Link to this
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.