Street Maryan: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee 
Street Maryan: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17396] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 Speaking on Part 4 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill which is named in a fairly anodyne way “Administrative and miscellaneous matters” I think the Minister in the chair the Attorney-General was correct in drawing to the House’s attention the actual import of this part of the legislation. 
My colleague David Parker has teased out some of the legal implications of the process of recognising customary interests which is addressed in this part. I will pick up on this issue because we have a situation where it is possible for the recognition of customary rights to be made by an agreement by the recognition of an order of the court or through legislation through an Act. I think this process is really problematic. The bit I think is problematic is the bit to do with recognition by agreement in clause 93 and following clauses. 
It becomes problematic because an applicant group and the responsible Minister can enter into an agreement recognising a protected customary right or a customary marine title without reference to anybody else. That is problematic. If the agreement is effected through an Order in Council then the Minister asserts that it is subject to parliamentary scrutiny. That process would have a huge impact on the work of the Regulations Review Committee and would politicise the committee in a way that is not helpful to the procedures of Parliament. The only way there would be parliamentary scrutiny of an Order in Council is through the Regulations Review Committee. The committee receives Orders in Council and regulations. Politicising the committee is not helpful to the machinery of either government or more important Parliament. I think it is an unhelpful provision. 
I also draw attention to the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 207. As we know this 73-page Supplementary Order Paper which is about half the size of the original bill includes changes to clauses 93 and 94 that relate to the agreements that are to be called recognition agreements and to how they are to be brought into effect. The difficulty is the lack of transparency around the process. These agreements are potentially backroom deals. They are potentially deals done in private that nobody has access to and that certainly the general public does not have access to. That process is not an advancement of lawmaking in this country. It is certainly not a desirable basis on which to settle this issue which is fractious and complicated. 
I draw the Committee’s attention to Labour’s amendment to clause 94 which puts recognition agreements or the proposed agreements made under clause 93 under the auspices and the authority of the High Court and states that unless the High Court can confirm by order that the requirements in other parts of the legislation are met the proposed agreement can have no effect. So we send it back to the courts. 
The cry from the Maori Party was that it did not have its day in court. Now the Maori Party is looking to support secret deals that will not have their day in court unless this legislation is amended.