Delahunty Catherine: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Delahunty Catherine: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17219] 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chair. Tena koutou e te Whare. I will address Part 1 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill but I would like to give some context. In 2004 my partner and I were the original token tauiwi who travelled from Tauranga to Wellington with Ngati Porou led by Tame Te Maro and with Ngati Kahungunu led by Moana Jackson Ngahiwi Tomoana and Mereana Pitman. This uplifting hikoi joined the rest of Aotearoa on the forecourt of this Parliament to do more than oppose the Labour Government’s legislation. The hikoi upheld the political and cultural strength of whanau hapu and iwi who had travelled together to remind the Government and the rest of the country that their mana whenua status and rights in the realm of the takutai moana had never been superseded given away or handed over and that they were therefore the last people who needed to prove their relationship. Raupatu was not acceptable that day and raupatu is not acceptable today. 
We sit here now in 2011 and later we will be arguing over the tests as another Government wishes to establish the recognition of a tangata whenua right to go to court. Regrettably the repeal of the original legislation is not the solution although it is being repealed in this bill tonight. Some are arguing that the bill is a step in the right direction but restoring due process in a manner that basically maintains basic inequality of access to justice cannot be celebrated. 
In terms of Part 1 the purpose of the bill is not in my view at least to provide true justice and equity under Te Tiriti o Waitangi let alone access to the beach for all New Zealanders. Access to the beach for all New Zealanders has never been the purpose of this or the previous legislation. The “haters and wreckers” have never been the hapu katoa asserting their mana whenua. Perhaps the Coastal Coalition might like to consider its responsibilities in the fostering of hate and the wrecking of local community and hapu relationships through its particular and perverse take on this bill. 
There are numerous issues to be addressed from the privileging of private title-holders in another part of this law to the unfair thresholds for establishing so-called customary rights within 6 years. Expressions such as “customary title” and “common space” have been given new and particular definitions and the courts will no doubt have a field day at others’ expense establishing those meanings. 
For me the underlying purpose of the bill is expressed in clause 9. The Crown under whatever name we choose wants control of the coastal resources so that it can bargain with multinationals. From Rio Tinto on the western coast to Petrobras in the east we have proposals for mineral exploration sand mining and oil drilling. The Crown does not want to bargain with iwi as well so it is much tidier for the Crown if it is the decision maker. 
The public thinks this bill is about their right to a picnic in the sand but really it is about the development of undersea and coastal wealth at the expense of the environment and future generations. While we fight over the mirage of public access the companies are busy working with our own Crown research entities assessing the opportunity to drill for oil and mine for sand. 
On the original hikoi in 2004 lots of people were acutely predicting the intensification of the coastal prospecting that we see today and which is being upheld by clause 9. But as has been said before we will fight on the beaches. If we go to the East Coast we will find hapu katoa fighting for the right to protect their area from oil drilling and those hapu see a direct relationship between Part 1 and their rights as mana whenua to protect their land from Petrobras a particularly unedifying multinational whose history includes many instances of oil-spills. Therefore the rights of the indigenous people of Aotearoa need no proof but their right to protect the environment alongside other citizens in terms of their relationship with Tangaroa and Papatuanuku is in need of our protection. 
If we want to look in detail at the way in which the coastal and economic zone has been expanded we will see a large increase in prospecting and mining rights which clause 9 absolutely establishes the Crown’s right to maintain its hold over. We will find that many citizens as well as tangata whenua are very concerned about that. We can keep talking about access and about the tests which we will talk about in the debate on Part 2 but in the end the tangata whenua do not have to prove anything. They were here first. 
What we do need to prove as a country is our capacity to look after our resources and respect people whose kaitiakitanga goes back through generations and who do not have to prove it. I think what we need to prove is our capability to look after our resources—our vulnerable coastal environment and our vulnerable communities who want to maintain their mana whenua rather than having to establish it through a court of law. I am very strongly in favour of the Green Party’s position on this bill. We oppose it.