Davis Kelvin: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Davis Kelvin: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17211] 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill is an indictment on the Maori Party. In fact not only is it an indictment on the Maori Party but also I suspect it will be its epitaph. The Maori Party has focused its efforts exclusively on repealing the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 and clause 4(2)(a) provides for the repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. That is the one thing on the Maori Party’s list that its members can tick off. It is the one thing on the Maori Party’s list that they can say they have achieved in the 5 years they have been in Parliament. 
The reality is that under the Maori Party and National outcomes for Maori have gone backwards not forwards. Members of the Maori Party have focused exclusively on the repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act to the detriment of issues that really matter to Maori. They do not have a plan for the Maori economy to move forward. We did not need a  
Native Affairs 
 survey last night to tell us that only 34 percent of Maori actually consider the Foreshore and Seabed Act to be an issue of any significance. The real issues that Maori are interested in are unemployment the cost of living the sale of assets and the rise in GST—things that the Maori Party voted for. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Part 1. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: I am saying Mr Chair that Maori Party members have focused solely on clause 4(2)(a) which repeals the Foreshore and Seabed Act to the detriment of all the other issues that really mean something to Maori such as unemployment and the rise in the cost of living. 
On clause 4 “Purpose” Maori Party members also say that they want to establish a durable scheme. This measure will not be durable. They have said already that this bill is just the start and that every 3 years come election time they will focus again on this issue—a bit at a time. This measure is not durable. It is about entrenching Maori in grievance. It is about making sure that Maori always have something to be upset about and always have something to complain about so that people will vote for the Maori Party because it is the party of grievance. Maori are better than that. We need to rise above the grievance mentality. We need to rise above it step above grievance and actually move on and make real changes in our lives. We need to address unemployment we need to address the Maori economy and we need to ease the cost of living for our people. 
I heard Hilary Calvert talk about tikanga. She obviously has a problem with the word “tikanga”. The trouble is that Maori do not have a problem with the word “tikanga”. We understand what it means. I get annoyed and I got annoyed during the Maori Affairs Committee hearings when people say that tikanga can end up meaning anything. Well it does not mean anything if one understands the Maori language. If people understand Maori customs and Maori culture then there is not an issue with the word “tikanga”. It is an issue only for those people who want to exclude themselves from the indigenous culture of New Zealand—they are the ones who have a problem with it. The word “tikanga” is pretty plain and clear to Maori. If the Coastal Coalition ACT Party members and anyone else has an issue with the word “tikanga” I suggest to them that they enrol at their local night classes if there are any in their community left standing and learn a little bit about Maori culture Maori language and Maori tikanga. 
Clause 7 defines the marine and coastal area. The marine and coastal area is “the area that is bounded—(i) on the landward side by the line of mean high-water springs;”. What we are talking about is the wet sand—the wet sand. That is what the Maori Party cares most about—wet sand. It does not care about issues that are really facing Maoridom but it cares about wet sand. We in the Labour Party care more about issues that are really affecting Maori people and as I have said those issues are unemployment the underachievement of Maori kids health and the longevity of Maori lives. As I said the marine and coastal area is defined in this bill and it is wet sand that we are talking about. 
There were a number of submitters who had not actually read the bill. They came in and they raved about the marine and coastal area. I remember one submitter in Whangarei who told us that this bill was the reason that coastal developments in Northland had basically finished and that there was no more building happening on the coast of Northland. I asked him whether he had read the bill and he said no. So I said: “Where in the ocean are you going to build your house?” He asked me what I meant and I told him that if he had read the bill he would know that the bill is about the wet sand—everything below the high tide mark. 
As I said earlier in the debate on the preamble there are two extreme polar opposites. A number of people from the Coastal Coalition and that ilk were put up to turn up and criticise this bill without actually having read it. I found that even though I opposed the bill I ended up having to defend the Minister in charge of the bill Chris Finlayson from some of the rabid ill-informed misinformation that was being put out by the members of the Coastal Coalition such as the fact that coastal developments in Northland had ceased because of this bill. That submitter had obviously misunderstood the issue. He did not understand that the lack of development was due to the lack of an economic plan from the National Government and was not due to this bill. 
Planning documents also caused a bit of anxiety for a number of people. They were worried about iwi and hapu planning documents that were going to “change the world as they knew it.” I have a planning document here. It is from Ngati Hine. It is all about working together cooperatively with regional councils and district councils and it is about working together for the good of everyone. I will read one part of the document. It states: “Te Rununga o Ngati Hine will promote and enhance partnerships between Ngati Hine central government and its agencies and regional and district councils.” This is not about being exclusive or about separate Maori development or apartheid. This is about integrating cooperating and establishing relationships. All Ngati Hine ask is that “the relationships of Ngati Hine need to be cognisant of our status as tangata whenua kaitiaki and Treaty partner.” I ask all those people who are so anti-Maori anti - planning documents and anti - everything else where the harm is in what Ngati Hine is asking. They want to work together with central government local government and regional government and I believe that that is an honourable and great thing for them to seek. 
I turn to the definition of “road”. There is the issue of Ninety Mile Beach. Ninety Mile Beach is deemed a road from what I understand. People cannot drive on Ninety Mile Beach at high tide unless they want to drive at about a 45-degree angle for 60 miles of sand dunes. But when the tide is out all and sundry use that road: tour buses people going fishing and people walking their dogs—everybody uses Ninety Mile Beach. I believe that it is deemed a road. So I wonder about the status of Ninety Mile Beach. It was not cleared up in my mind at the select committee whether Ninety Mile Beach is being used as a road but it is actually part of the coastal common marine area so I have that issue still wandering around. 
In terms of “warden” there is a lot of concern by members of the Coastal Coalition and their ilk that wardens are going to be standing guard over areas of the coast. The bill does not say “Maori wardens”. Maori wardens are normally elderly people in their 70s who stand at the gates of marae and direct people in cars to car-parking areas. I do not think that the word “warden” in this bill means a warden as set out in the Maori Community Development Act. However it is a big stretch for the Coastal Coalition and others to try to make a case that in the dunes of every beach there will be—