Parker David: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Parker David: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17333] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 It is notable that National has taken no calls this evening on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill except for calls to call closures— 
Hon Simon Power 
: I just took a call. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Except to call closures. There has not been one substantive contribution from National nor from the Maori Party. They are just trying to put this through—no the Minister in the chair the Hon Christopher Finlayson made an initial contribution but there has been no contribution from any member on the opposite side of the Chamber except for the Minister in the chair. 
The last time I spoke I explained to the Committee why the Labour Party moved from preferring codification of the tests in legislation and I dealt I thought with the issue that the Attorney-General raised in his initial contribution. I want to now refer to two issues where there are problems with the statutory codification. The first is that I do not understand why in clause 60(2) as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson—but in this respect it is not much different from the form that was in the original bill—there is no substantial interruption of the exclusive use and occupation of a specified area by virtue of the fact of a resource consent for an activity being granted between the commencement of the Act and the effective date. That is a strange thing for me because it almost implies that if there was a resource consent granted outside that period it does undermine exclusive use and occupation since 1840. So what is the case in respect of resource consents granted for example between the Ngati Apa decision and the date of this bill? That is one example of a situation where I think there will be a sense of injustice amongst Maoridom as to the effect of this legislation. 
Another one where we have problems is that the Government decided early on that it would stick with exclusive use and occupation and then it decided that it could envisage times when there could be more than one party with a customary right that could have co-existed back in 1840. It came up with the concept that more than one party could have exclusive use and control; in effect one could say that someone did it jointly. So the Government thought that it needed to accommodate that somehow. The Government has a mechanism in the bill that allows more than one party to come forward and to effectively have customary title rights that overlap each other. I have no problem with that. But what I have a problem with is that the Government then came out and said that if one person applies for recognition of rights someone else has to put up their hand at the same time. By the time it gets through the process in respect of that first right—and it might have the second party involved—anyone else who was ignorant of the process or who did not at that time have the resources to pursue recognition of their extant right loses their right if they do not put their hand up within that period. 
I cannot see how that is fair. I do not think a court would do that. I do not think a court would say: “Look I’m sorry. You may have had rights but because we’ve recognised somebody else’s rights we will not recognise yours.” We can have rights that coexist. Why are we codifying this legislation in a way that makes people lose their rights just because they did not take part in the process? The issue is made even worse given the fact that some of those processes will not be through court processes. I have great trust in the processes run by the courts to protect the various interests involved when there are competing private interests within those terms— 
Paul Quinn 
: Why didn’t you write that into the Foreshore and Seabed Act David? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Oh look. Here we go. We have National crowing again about why did we not do this and why did we not do that in the 2004 Act. We did that because people like the man who is sitting next to that member rarked up race relations— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: With Don Brash! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
:—with Don Brash on talkback radio and brought out the racism in New Zealand that is oh so close to the surface whenever we scratch these itches. That is one of the reasons that we did not get that legislation perfect. 
I also say that although the 2004 Act was not perfect it was not nearly as bad as it has been characterised by its critics. We have said though there was an important impediment in the Act that we passed—we acknowledge that we got that wrong—and that is that a person should be able to get a court remedy. A person should be able to get a court remedy if they have an extant interest that had not been extinguished.