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:17223] 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I would like to take a call on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill particularly in respect of clause 8. Clause 8 is a rather long and large litany of the meaning of “accommodated activity”. The bill attempts to codify “accommodated activity” meaning one of those things that will be exempt from the bill. 
To start with I would like to explain very clearly and carefully why Labour supports abolishing clauses 8 and 9—and Labour has put up an amendment in the name of David Parker—so that we do not have to codify a rather ridiculous and long list of exemptions that should go to the court and have the High Court decide on those matters. I take into account also my colleague Parekura Horomia’s reservations about the High Court and the ability of the High Court—as has been seen in other cases—to understand and to weigh up Maori tikanga in terms of being able to make that particular decision. 
I want to look at a couple of issues around clause 8—in particular clause 8(1)(d): “an existing activity that is undertaken in accordance with a resource consent or other lawful approval granted under an enactment that was replaced by the Resource Management Act 1991:”. That brings an enormous amount of latitude to the interpretation of the bill rather than trying to codify every single possibility and it going to the High Court for it to be ruled on in that particular way. 
I will take a moment to compliment the officials—some of whom are here in the Chamber—for the extraordinary job they have done in putting together more than 5500 submissions and nearly 300 oral submissions for the departmental report from the Ministry of Justice. The really unfortunate side of this is that it will not be used to its full extent because we have not had the ability to debate the bill in the way we should have when it is of such vital importance to New Zealand. Instead it will be research for the enormous number of PhD and master’s degree students who will be looking through it to show where the Government went wrong when it tried to ram through legislation that was so divisive in this country. I remind members that this bill is legislation that John Key said he wanted to sort out and to resolve once and for all. Unfortunately that will not be the case. 
I come back to clause 8 because it is the area I particularly want to focus on. I will quote from the officials’ departmental report on clause 8(1)(i): “The purpose of this clause is to ensure that the existing marine mammal sanctuaries”—and as I was saying before here we get into the detail of the bill that is trying to codify every single aspect of a possible situation that might come up—“continue to operate as they have done prior to the enactment of this bill. Any substantial iwi and hapu rights over such areas should have already been considered and dealt with during the establishment phase of the reserve.” But of course the reserve might have already been in place and then a customary right might be established. The question then becomes which has sway over the other. It goes on to state that management activities will depend on the nature of each sanctuary but could involve activities such as monitoring and gathering information. In this situation in relation to clause 8(1)(i) the number of areas that the legislation attempts to codify were quite rightfully pointed out by a number of submitters.