Paul Goldsmith: Treaty negotiations and Justice Minister comments on foreshore and seabed amendment bill.

The Treaty Negotiations Minister's standing by amendments to foreshore and seabed legislation, which has passed its third reading. 

The aim of the Government's Marine and Coastal Areas Act amendments was to restore the legislation to its original intent.

But it's been criticised for making it harder for Māori to gain customary marine titles.

Treaty Negotiations Minister and Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith told Mike Hosking most New Zealanders recognise balance is needed in accessing these resources.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
So the Foreshore Seabed Amendment Bill got through the House
last night. It restores the law to what it was originally.
Of course, sixty eight votes to fifty four in the end,
essentially reverses called an appeal decision that made it easier
to claim. Paul Goldsmith Treaty negotiations and Justice Minister with us,
good morning, Good morning. In your opinion, how angsty has
this been?

Speaker 2 (00:18):
A Look, Look, there's been quite a lot of quite
strong rhetoric overnight in the last couple of days. But overall, look,
I think most people recognize that a balance was set.
I mean, all New Zealanders have got an interest in
what goes on on the foreshore and the seabed. We
all share this country. And so when you move away

(00:40):
from those basic expectations to the ability as you have
under this law, if you have custom Memorne title to
grant resource consents in an area for certain things and
a whole lot of quite valuable rights, that there was
a high threshold for that. Exactly process reduced that threshold
and we're restoring it. That's the purpose. And look, I

(01:01):
think it makes sense and it is important.

Speaker 1 (01:04):
Do you think that with the rhetoric that we've heard
in the media in particular, that people it has been
lost on people that you are merely restoring it to
what it was. You've not invented anything here, you just
taking it back to what it was.

Speaker 2 (01:15):
Well, look, I mean people will make all sorts of arguments,
and yes there's vague statements, rewriting of history and anything
involving the courts and the judicial process. You know, there's
always room for arguments, but ultimately, that's all we're trying
to do. We're just trying to have a regime that

(01:37):
does allow MARI groups to claim and assert their customary rights,
but set's an appropriate threshold so that we're not dealing
with one hundred percent of the coastline being in this category,
which is quite a significant move away from what people
would normally expect.

Speaker 1 (01:53):
Are you aggrieved at the court over reaching the fact
you had to do this, Well, we would have far
preferred not to have to have done this. But look,
and when we first introduced us, it was the Court
of Appeal decision, and there were you know, there was
house of protests from some groups, but then of course
the Supreme Court agreed with us that the Court of
Appeal had got it wrong, and then they put their

(02:15):
own threshold, and we ultimately came to the conclusion, after
much careful thought, that even that their version was still
not what Parliament had intended. And we've seen a couple
of cases come through onto that threshold where you know,
essentially one hundred percent of the coastline in the Kaperty
area was granted customer marine title and that certainly wasn't

(02:38):
the expectation. While I've got you your BSA comments yesterday,
I thought were interesting because they are in direct contrast
to what the Prime Minister said on Monday. Are you
two heading for a collision course?

Speaker 2 (02:48):
No? No, Look, I mean obviously, as the responsible minister,
I cannot interfere austeer particular cases and make comment on them.
I think that there's two separate things going on. There's
the BSA making their extension into the Internet. What are

(03:09):
we dealing with, well, internet providers who were doing a
thing similar to radio and so there's a couple there's
only a very small number of people in that category,
but there is a much broader discussion to be had,
given the fact that you know it's no longer makes
obvious sense why one group of people would be regulated
and others wouldn't. If you've got a podcast on politics,

(03:30):
for example, that's not regulated, but if you've got a
radio show, it is. And so we already were having
a process to review that. And there's two basic options.
You could try and extend the reach of the BSA
to be to covering all things that look similar. Or
you could just get rid of it entirely and say, well,
the world's moved on, and to.

Speaker 1 (03:49):
Get rid of it entirely, and so the world's moved
on sounds good to me.

Speaker 2 (03:52):
Well that that is one of the options. And so
we're working our way through through this at the moment,
and we're giving some careful thought to it. You know,
it was it was an act that was set up
in nineteen eighty nine before a whole lot of things
have happened, and so it's you know, nobody's got round
to dealing with it, and we are going to deal
with it.

Speaker 1 (04:09):
When you're the man, good stuf a right, appreciate it.
We'll stay in touch. Justice Minister Treaty negotiations. Minister Paul's
Goldsmith with us this morning. For more from the My
Asking Breakfast, listen live to News Talks i'd Be from
six am weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio