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:17234] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 Part 2 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill has three subparts. The first outlines the basic interests in the common marine and coastal area and this includes the important clause that provides for the special status of the common marine and coastal area as an area that cannot be sold. I do not intend to go through the way in which we reached the concept of a common marine and coastal area. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Why not? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Because the Hon Peter Dunne I say to the senior Opposition whip gave an excellent second reading speech in which he explained how the concept of public domain had almost taken hold when Ms Clark needed to run to the New Zealand First Party for guidance and New Zealand First was adamant that there had to be absolute Crown ownership. That is the first subpart. 
Certainly the bill as introduced contains in this part provisions to repeal the 2004 Act and restore customary interests which were extinguished by it. It also contains provisions as to existing interests—for example resource consents. 
Subpart 2 outlines public rights and powers in the common marine and coastal area. It preserves the public right of access fishing rights and navigation rights—and I will say something about access in a minute. Subpart 3 provides a new regime for reclamations which is as a result of a great deal of consultation with organisations like the port companies. 
There are a couple of changes contained in the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 207. As mentioned earlier it is proposed that clauses 14 and 15 which deal with the repeal of the 2004 Act and the restoration of customary interests be moved into Part 1. Clauses 16 and 16A change the status of roads so roads will no longer become part of the common marine and coastal area and will continue to be owned by their current owners. If an unformed road continues to be unformed for 15 years it will become part of the common marine and coast area. 
The Supplementary Order Paper also reframes clause 30 and I believe that that will better meet the policy intent that these functions held by the Minister of Conservation are residual only and it also moves these particular provisions to Part 4. The Supplementary Order Paper will also remove clause 31 which relates to notices regarding dangerous structures. The clause is no longer needed as the relevant agencies already have jurisdiction under existing legislation. 
I do want to say something about clause 27 because it has been the subject of lots of excited comment. It was the first stage of opposition to the bill for organisations like the Coastal Coalition and certainly questions have been asked in the House about it. Some of those questions could almost be regarded as offensive—questions about Maori wanting to block access to the foreshore and seabed which is a proposition that I find profoundly insulting. It is suggested that a Supplementary Order Paper will make it clear beyond peradventure that no one can charge. Indeed the explanatory note on Supplementary Order Paper 210 in the name of Hilary Calvert says her “for the avoidance of doubt” provision is based on a similar prohibition on charging contained in the existing Foreshore and Seabed Act. It seems that the opponents of this bill are like insatiable cormorants—we give them some guidance and we give them some help but it never satisfies them; they just want more and more. This Supplementary Order Paper reaches as it were the denouement because it is truly fantastical. 
But anyway I will say something about the existing regime in the 2004 Act because section 7 of that Act provides for certain rights of access. I particularly refer honourable members to section 7(2): “Every natural person has access rights in on over or across the public foreshore and seabed.” Those access rights can be limited for various reasons—for example use by port companies naval bases and places like that. In fact in section 7 there is no prohibition on charging; it is a statement of rights of access. Then one moves to section 40 which is said to be the non-charging section but one finds it relates only to the guardians of a foreshore and seabed reserve or an applicant group or a board not being entitled to charge or collect fees or other forms of payment. The point I am endeavouring to make is that the 2004 Act does not contain a general prohibition on charging and that to suggest otherwise is simply to misread the legislation. 
A number of submissions have been made some in good faith and some in bad faith about the scope of clause 27. As I have said all along one does not need to add the phrase “without charge” because a reading of the bill and in particular I refer to clauses 64 and 119 means that the cumulative effect of what we are dealing with here—a bundle of rights referred to in clause 64 when an applicant group succeeds in obtaining customary title—are just those rights and no more than that. But because some concerns were expressed by people—no doubt as I say some in good faith—we have added into clause 27 the phrase “without charge” to make that clear beyond any doubt whatsoever. 
But undeterred Ms Calvert has put forward a proposed amendment to avoid doubt; she wants to add in a subclause (5). I say to her that it does not even get to base one because there is no doubt whatsoever—there never was any doubt—and we are getting to an extreme stage where the member is proposing an amendment that can only be regarded as stating the obvious. I was trying to think whom she reminded me of the other day and then I came across it. Many years ago there was a very good programme called  
Fawlty Towers.  
One day when Sybil was in hospital for treatment of an ingrown toenail Basil suggested that she enter  
Mastermind 
 and that her topic could be the bleeding obvious. Really it is that kind of amendment that we have; it is a statement of the bleeding obvious. One finds that it is totally unnecessary when one looks at what the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by the Government provides and when a fair reading of the bill provides the combination of clauses 64 and 119. So I say to Ms Calvert that her proposed amendment is not as it were complicated by any vestige of merit. It is unmeritorious it is mischievous and quite frankly it is unpleasant.