Boscawen John: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee 
Boscawen John: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:17505] 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 As you say Mr Chairperson we are back on groundhog day debating the last debatable question in the Committee stage of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. Of course we are debating clauses 1 and 2 dealing with the title and the commencement date. I would like to speak on the amendment in the name of my colleague Hilary Calvert who suggests that this bill might be renamed the “Marine and Coastal Area (Secret Deals Behind Closed Doors Without Public Scrutiny) Bill” or simply the “Removal of Public Scrutiny Bill 2011” or the “Secret Deals Bill 2011”. 
Alternatively perhaps Hilary Calvert could have chosen to move another amendment to the title: the “Marine and Coastal Area (Lost Opportunities) Bill”. The reason I say “lost opportunities” is that I am amazed by the number of Government members who have said over the last 6 months that Labour made a mistake. Within hours of the Court of Appeal making its decision known in 2003 Helen Clark walked in where angels feared to tread and decided she would legislate. As a consequence ever since that time iwi and hapu have felt that they have had their rights taken from them and that they have been denied their day in court. 
What have the National and Maori Party responses been to that? It seems to me that the most basic response and the correct response would have been to correct Helen Clark’s mistake and simply repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act. The Maori Party campaigned at the 2005 and 2008 general elections on repealing the 2004 Act. It seems to me that if that repeal had happened we would not have had the hikoi marching on Wellington today. Although the Attorney-General thinks he is doing what is best for New Zealanders the problem with this solution is that we still have a group of New Zealanders who feel as though their property has been confiscated and that they have been denied the right to have their day in court. The only way to correct that was to ensure that the 2004 Act was repealed full stop. 
But this bill takes fright. National is taking fright just as Labour took fright in 2003. National was not happy for iwi and hapu to have their day in court. It wanted to set down a number of tests; it wanted to set down the rules if you like. The Attorney-General has talked about the importance of British common law and of the courts interpreting common law but in this bill he is actually denying the courts the right to do that. He is actually setting down the tests. In setting down those tests the ACT Party believes that the Attorney-General is lowering the bar. We believe that large areas of New Zealand that would otherwise not be transferred are likely to be transferred to iwi and hapu at the expense of other New Zealanders. Equally we believe that some iwi and hapu may well be denied the right to have their day in court and denied the right to get what would lawfully be theirs. This bill is not the correct solution. The Government has taken fright. 
Not only has the Government taken fright but it has actually misled New Zealanders. I was at a debate last night at the Remuera Rotary Club with the gentleman who sits alongside Mr Chair the Hon Chris Finlayson. The members of the Remuera Rotary Club invited us to debate this particular issue. It is a tragedy that some of the misinformation that is coming from National was repeated last night at that function. I refer to the continual reference to the need to prove continuous and exclusive occupation. National members have said time and time again that one would need to show continuous and exclusive occupation of an area in order to gain customary title. That is not the case. The Attorney-General knows that there are provisions in this very bill that say it is quite acceptable for other New Zealanders to have fished in a particular area for other New Zealanders to have boated through a particular area and for iwi and hapu not to have had exclusive occupation since 1840 but that nevertheless we will continue to maintain the charade that they have. 
I raised with the Attorney-General at question time today the issue of access to beaches. When the Attorney-General was asked a question about access to beaches at the Rotary Club last night he said he did not believe that the presence of wahi tapu would prevent people from walking over an area of the common marine and coastal area—what the members of the Rotary Club would regard as a beach. I actually had to stand up and point out to the members of the Rotary Club that despite the assurance of the Attorney-General they had only to look to clause 27(2) to see it makes it absolutely clear that the rights of free access are subject to the rights of wahi tapu. It is there in black and white. 
But I also said to the members of the Rotary Club when I was asked that the reason this bill is being passed is that most New Zealanders do not understand it. Most New Zealanders have had a gutsful of debating this issue over the last 7 years. It has gone over their heads. National is pushing the bill through the House and I suspect it will pass its final Committee stage tonight because most New Zealanders have not taken the trouble to find out the provisions of the bill or because they have been happy to accept what in our view are the incorrect assurances of National. I think that is a tragedy because eventually those New Zealanders will wake up and understand the full provisions of the bill. It is as simple an issue as that. If more people had become aware of the provisions of the bill and if those provisions had not been misrepresented I believe we would have a much bigger uproar and I do not believe that this bill would be passed through the House. One has only to go to the document on the Beehive website that a member of the Rotary Club referred to last night  
Setting the Record Straight 
. As I have said before in this Committee stage down at the bottom of the page the Government accuses a group such as the Coastal Coalition of spreading misleading information when in fact the Government is doing that.