English Bill: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — Second Reading 
English Bill: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:670;Page:16991] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I am pleased to take this opportunity to support those who have worked so hard to bring the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill to this point of the legislative process. They are my colleagues the Hon Chris Finlayson Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia and the Maori Affairs Committee which has heard so many strong views so often over such a long period of time. I think it has done a very good job in that respect. 
There is no doubt that strong views may well continue to be expressed on this legislation. But in a sense it is just another step that this Parliament and Governments in New Zealand over the last 20 or 30 years have taken following a long process of balancing and incorporating different views of history justice and property rights into the legislative and constitutional structure of New Zealand and each time those steps have been taken similar anxieties have been expressed. They are anxieties that are understandable and on occasions including this process they have led to an improved balance of rights and recognition. I can think of two examples where similar anxieties have been expressed—by both Maori and others—one was around the fisheries settlement. My electorate has about 3000 miles of coastline so the fisheries settlement mattered. Many of the anxieties that were expressed at that time have not come to pass. 
Another step taken by Parliament and Government in New Zealand was when the first large-scale Treaty settlements occurred in the mid 1990s. Again those decisions were surrounded by a good deal of anxiety. But I say that in each of those cases progress was made. It was made because people had a sense of fairness about the way the dealings were done and those dealings led to certainty. There is no doubt that when people have certainty about their rights particularly their property rights it enables them to take a forward-looking view based on enterprise and progress rather than a backward-looking view based on injustice or uncertainty. It allows them to get on with making a positive use of those rights as a liberal capitalist economy allows them to do. This has certainly been the case in the follow-on from the settlement of fishing claims and the follow-on from Treaty settlements where those who have settled almost without exception have found it to be a positive experience. In the case of fishing rights it has allowed the development of one of the better fishing management systems in the world and the development of a strong base of wealth and expertise around this certainty—not just certainty for Maori but certainty for everyone else who has an interest in fishing in New Zealand. 
That is the context in which I think we should see the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. It is based on three important principles. The first principle is that the courts should be open to all citizens. The second principle is that all property rights should be respected and this includes common law rights—that is rights established by use and custom. The third principle is that we should maintain public access to beaches. 
It may be that some people are not aware that common law rights exist but they have existed for hundreds of years in British-type systems and they exist now. Existing property rights have to be respected. I suspect that a lot of this debate has boiled down as I think David Parker said to a debate over whether to codify the tests for customary and other rights. The Government along with the Maori Party has made a decision to codify the tests. The reasons relate to the points I made earlier. Firstly codifying the tests properly makes this debate one that is conducted by Parliament rather than by just the courts alone. Secondly codifying the tests will give us more certainty which enables people to feel that these issues are settled in their sense of fairness and justice but also more certainty in the sense of the economic use of the property rights. Experience in other jurisdictions has shown that where the courts are left to determine common law rights held by indigenous peoples it is a lengthy complex and inconclusive process— 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: And expensive. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: —and very expensive whereby the lawyers win more than anyone else. Maybe in Canada or Australia they can afford to do that where these rights are pretty peripheral to the mainstream economic activity but in New Zealand we need as much certainty as we can get. It is best to get on and do it. 
We should accept that there are strong views on the bill. Both National and the Maori Party have worked hard to incorporate what might reasonably deal with the anxieties that have been expressed on both sides of the argument. The fact that Maori believe they will get nothing and the Coastal Coalition believes that Maori will get everything tells us that we are probably about right. In our pragmatic approach to these constitutional-type issues in New Zealand that is not a bad measure of success. It is clearly not the case that this legislation— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Everyone thinks you’re wrong. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Everyone thinks you are wrong. I could not have put it better myself. It amounts to the same thing. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I’ve been in that position often. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Mr Mallard has achieved a bit in his time too. If everyone thinks we are wrong we are about in the middle. It is probably the next most pragmatic step we can take. 
I particularly acknowledge today the way in which the Maori Party has dealt with this issue. It is always difficult for a small party in Government. If it was not this issue that put pressure on both the Maori Party and the ACT Party it would have been other issues. They have articulated strong views. We have heard those views from both the ACT Party and the Maori Party. We have the choice as a Parliament to just drop the issue because it is too difficult and hope that in the future it will be solved or that someone else will solve it. That would be quite an unacceptable outcome. It is the proper role of smaller parties to take strong positions as long as they respect the need for the Government and Parliament to take a position that can actually be implemented because those are not the same thing. In both cases here the smaller parties—certainly the ones the Government has dealt with—respect the role of the Government in coming to a conclusion to a debate that would otherwise go on endlessly and in my view destructively. That is why the Government is taking a step and particularly wants to acknowledge the Maori Party with the pressures that have come to bear on it in making the very difficult but right decision to back progress rather than to have continued argument. That always takes a certain amount of courage and finding that courage is admirable. It is much harder for a smaller party to do that so I acknowledge today the Maori Party’s effort. 
The bill will be subject to vigorous debate—we expect that. We know there are strong views about the bill but it is important for New Zealand to take pragmatic decisions in order to move forward and build the basis for the kind of economic and social progress that comes when old injustices are settled recent injustices are dealt with—as the legislation we are repealing created—and we can look ahead. There may be further arguments about this issue in the future.