Shearer David: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Shearer David: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17245] 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I will speak on two clauses in Part 2: clause 11 which a couple of my colleagues have already spoken to and then clause 14. Part 2 deals with the common marine and coastal area and clause 11—for those people who perhaps have just joined us—looks at the special status of the common marine and coastal area. I point to subclause (2) which is basically the crux of this part. It states that “Neither the Crown nor any other person owns or is capable of owning the common marine and coastal area as in existence from time to time from the commencement of this Part.” That is an extraordinary clause in this legislation. I think it confuses pretty much all of New Zealand and it certainly confused the many submitters who spoke on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. The clause is some sort of geographic twilight zone designed for a political purpose and not really designed both to be durable and to give satisfaction to all sides in trying to understand and come to terms with the property rights inherent in this bill. 
If we look at Part 2 for example we know that many of the submitters felt that this area of land this no-ownership land should have actually stayed in the keeping of the Crown. As my colleague David Parker said in his speech in many ways when we look at the interests the rights the obligations and the authority over this no man’s land we see that it is the Crown that holds all those rights—and I will go into some of those in a minute. Therefore the provision gives the pretence and the illusion that we have something that is quite different and something that is workable when in fact we have something that I do not think has ever existed in law before. As I say it quite patently will not be durable in the longer term. 
Many submitters said for example that the common heritage of New Zealanders should be kept in Crown ownership for the benefit of everybody and in many ways we see that that is exactly what this legislation does when we look at the rights and responsibilities that the Crown will exercise over this particular area of land. On the other hand a number of iwi and other submitters did not support the provision because they felt that the non-ownership regime was just symbolic. It was not actually real at all; it was simply symbolic. I would say that that is exactly the case; all it does is introduce a vagary into our legislation that was not there before. 
There are other reasons for not supporting this common marine and coastal area. It applies only to Maori where Maori have an interest as opposed to any other private title so in a sense it discriminates against Maori and what Maori are looking for. The proposal is also flawed because there are three exceptions to the no-ownership regime and this is what I was talking about in terms of its illusory nature: the exclusion of pre-existing freehold titles the ability of the Crown to deem or declare land in the common marine coastal area to have status under various conservation statutes—in other words conservation statutes will continue—and the administration of those statutes by the Minister of Conservation. Some submitters also argued that the bill breached the guarantees of exclusive possession under the Treaty of Waitangi which is another larger and bigger issue that I do not want to go into. 
One curious anomaly that arises because of this no-man’s land was brought up by the Dunedin City Council. The council basically said that it was unclear whether the common marine coastal area would in fact be rateable under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. That is quite an interesting concept because if that land were under Crown ownership of course the Crown would not be liable for rates. But actually this area is not in Crown ownership. The Crown effectively has an interest as I said before and the way it controls it is likened to an ownership right but it certainly will not be the owner. It is possible for the Crown to be considered liable for rates because section 10 of the Local Government (Rating) Act provides that “a ratepayer is the person who is named … in the rating information database and the district valuation roll.” In other words the Crown could be in fact liable for rates on land that is actually under no ownership. This provision as I say was a piece of legislative creativity that was set down to try to resolve a political matter. It did not try to address the real issue that was before us. 
I will go on to clause 14 which gets to some of the heart of what this bill seeks to do. As the Minister said clause 14 repeals the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act. What is interesting about this is the regulatory impact statement of May last year. It stated: “If it was not for the symbolic value of repeal and a desire to address the Crown ownership aspect of the Act then amendment could be an appropriate solution …”. In other words we could have amended the 2004 Act quite easily to give real impact and restore many of the issues that people have been objecting to. That would not have given the political outcome that the Government desired. It certainly was not the political outcome that the Maori Party desired. We now have an enormous bill with a 75-page Supplementary Order Paper that is being rushed through Parliament without the ability of the Maori Affairs Committee to give it really good solid consideration and without our having draft legislation to work from and to work studiously through. We now have a situation with legislation that is extraordinarily divisive and that will not be durable; the Prime Minister claimed that durability was his main goal in putting through this legislation. 
Moreover this legislation really underscores just how limited the gains have been for the Maori Party. What exactly has the Maori Party gained from this bill? Its members could have changed the 2004 Act sufficiently to give the impact and the outcome they desired. The reality is that this bill will not fix the problem. The Maori Party has said that the bill does not settle the issue for its members. The party has said that this is only the starting point. In many ways Hone Harawira’s position in this is the most honest; he has said: “I don’t agree with this.” 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.