Davis Kelvin: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Davis Kelvin: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17336] 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 First of all I need to take issue with what the ACT Party keeps on saying about Maori being gifted or given special rights because that is not true. What we are talking about here with regard to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill are the rights that Maori have always had. Maori have been here since way before 1840. Our way of life and what we have done has not changed; we are just pursuing the rights that we have always had. I really take issue with the misconception that Maori have been plonked here recently and given special rights. Maori are pursuing the rights that we have always believed we had. 
Having thrown that brickbat this is not a bouquet for the ACT Party but more of an acknowledgment of an issue that the Hon John Boscawen has raised about wahi tapu and the concern that we as Maori will claim every single square kilometre of the foreshore and seabed as a wahi tapu in order to exclude people. I think we need to be careful as Maori that we do not try to make out that every single area where we can launch a waka for example is some sort of sacred area. I could say that the boat ramp at Waitangi is a wahi tapu because I could tell my children that their tupuna launched his waka there when in fact I am just referring to their grandfather launching a 9-foot tinny. We have to be careful that we do not try to make areas tapu that are not tapu. In fact if something is being regularly and commonly used it is actually noa which is the opposite of tapu. 
That is a word of caution I believe to Maori that we do not fuel the arguments that the ACT Party is dishing out there stating that Maori will make every area of the takutai moana a wahi tapu because our tupuna might have walked there—our tupuna being our fathers say and our grandfathers. That is just a word of caution. 
I also think we need to acknowledge the Moriori contribution in the select committee stage on this bill in the Maori Affairs Committee. Moriori were not happy with the clause that states that the foreshore and seabed has to have been exclusively used and occupied since 1840 because in 1835 they were invaded and a lot of their rights were taken away 5 years before the date that we have written in here of 1840. Moriori believe that their rights will be denied if that provision regarding exclusive use and occupation since 1840 is put through. I think it is important that we acknowledge the contribution from the Moriori of the Chatham Islands / Rekohu. 
I also want to bring up a point about the wardens that are mentioned in clause 79. I really think it is important because hapu and iwi are able to appoint wardens that there is some way for those wardens to be identified if people come along to the beach and find there is a warden guarding a wahi tapu. Although I find it hard to believe that someone will be standing around in a wahi tapu just waiting to tell people to go away I think there needs to be some sort of mechanism for recognising wardens. We do not want to have a situation whereby a Maori person who is just a standing there enjoying the beach and minding their own business is accused of intimidating people. We do not want that to be used as an excuse by people to say wardens are there to scare people off. The whole issue of the wardens I think needs to be examined and thought through really carefully so that Maori are not mistaken for somebody whom they are not. Again I say there might be confusion between the definitions of “warden” in this bill and in the Maori Community Development Act.