Finlayson Christopher: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17202] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I will make just a couple of preliminary comments about Part 1 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. The part sets out—not surprisingly given its title—certain preliminary provisions. They outline the purpose of the bill. There is a very important and carefully defined Treaty clause and clauses that provide some definition of two terms: “accommodated activity” and “deemed accommodated activity”. They are activities that do not fall within the customary marine title permission rights. 
There are a number of amendments on the substantive Supplementary Order Paper 207. Clauses 8 and 9 will be moved from Part 1 and it is proposed that they be located within Part 3 before the resource management and conservation permission rights to which they relate. The terms “accommodated activity” and “deemed accommodated activity” have been very carefully refined to ensure that they better reflect the policy intent and to improve their workability. It is also proposed that the clauses that actually repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act and restore customary interests—clauses 14 and 15—be moved to immediately after the purpose clause. That is what the Supplementary Order Paper proposes. 
There are a couple of other clauses I would not mind just briefly referring to. Clause 6 is an important clause. In the course of a number of submissions that were made to the Maori Affairs Committee as I understand it and also in the course of a number of written submissions hellfire and brimstone have been aired to the effect that if this legislation passes New Zealand’s sovereignty will somehow be diminished. Of course that is to address the very point that the Court of Appeal said was mistaken: to conflate the concepts of ownership and sovereignty. On 6 February 1840 when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed the British Crown assumed sovereignty of Aotearoa New Zealand. But at that time existing indigenous property rights continued to exist. In other words the assumption of sovereignty did not undermine those ownership rights. Time and time again when I have been speaking on this bill over the last period—more particularly in the last couple of weeks—people in the audience have got up and raised those matters with me. I have had to say to them that ownership and sovereignty are two different concepts. Clause 6 deals with that issue and the Supplementary Order Paper redrafts it not to alter anything substantively but to set it out more clearly. 
Clause 7 is the interpretation clause. A couple of points are worth making here. The first point deals with the definition of the “common marine and coastal area”. Paragraph (a) refers to those parts that are held in fee simple. Specified freehold land located in the area will not be included in the common marine and coastal area. I thought the position was very well articulated by the Hon David Parker in response to the Green Party member’s speech that nothing is to be gained by essentially indulging in a confiscation of land held in freehold title. It is important for the member of the Green Party Metiria Turei who says she adopts a beautiful pure approach to these matters to understand that the effect of what she is seeking would be to remove and put into the customary marine title area general land owned by Pakeha general land owned by Maori and also customary land. I do not think that is particularly wise and we will not go there. We will not confiscate Maori customary land from Maori nor will we confiscate general land that they may own. 
I will just say something about paragraph (c) of the definition of the “common marine and coastal area” which deals with the bed of Te Whaanga Lagoon in the Chatham Islands because there is some interesting background to that issue. The Waitangi Tribunal’s report of 2001 deals with the position of Ngati Mutunga and Moriori claims in the Chatham Islands. The tribunal found that the lagoon should be vested in a body that was representative both of Ngati Mutunga and of Moriori. In fact Ngati Mutunga had lodged a case in 1993 contesting the tribunal’s findings. They viewed the lagoon as their Maori customary land. The Maori Land Court adjourned the case for the tribunal’s hearing of the Ngati Apa case. So rather than put the lagoon into the common marine and coastal area we have specifically excluded it at this stage. If it is put into the common marine and coastal area it cannot be used in a Treaty settlement. It is my fervent hope that at a point in the not too distant future we will be able to enter into negotiations both with Ngati Mutunga and with Moriori and achieve a settlement that will deal with this lagoon. The lagoon should never have been put into Crown ownership in 2004. It is important that it not be moved across to the common marine and coastal area now so that it can be used in a Treaty settlement. 
The other definitions are very technical and I do not think that I need to take the time of the Committee in order to deal with them.