Parker David: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Parker David: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17218] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I will deal with a matter that arises from clause 7 that relates to the definition of “common marine and coastal area”. The importance of this definition is that parts of the marine and coastal area which is also defined in the bill are subject to claims for customary interests and they can be made only in areas that are common marine and coastal area within the definition of the bill. Of course the definition that came to the Maori Affairs Committee is the definition that is still set out in the bill. That is now being amended by Supplementary Order Paper 207 from the Minister in the chair the Attorney-General and it changes the definition substantially. 
In this regard I refer the House to a letter from the New Zealand Law Society dated 7 March. This letter was written on behalf of the Law Society by its president Jonathan Temm who is becoming increasingly concerned at the poor processes used by this Government not just in respect of this bill but also in respect of another bill. Indeed as we sit here in another part of this complex today similar poor process is being adopted in respect of a telecommunications bill. Increasingly the Law Society is concerned that the effect of this is that we can have bad law and we can make mistakes because we do not allow changes to proposed law to have proper scrutiny. The letter stated: “The Law Society has noted the Maori Affairs Committee by majority is recommending the passage of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill without amendment. The appended list of possible amendments prepared by officials in light of submissions received”— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What’s wrong with that? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Mr Henare should listen to the rest of the letter from the Law Society because there is lots wrong with the process. Paragraph (c) of the letter continues: “Your subsequent public statement that you intend introducing amendments to the bill presumably by way of Supplementary Order Paper on its return to the House” and “One such amendment will be to require that negotiated agreements concerning customary marine title be given effect through legislation. The society is concerned that the foreshadowed process of introducing significant amendments by way of the SOP procedure will remove the opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny of these amendments. There are two specific concerns” and then it notes them. I do not have time to go into them in full but essentially the letter states that there is not as much public scrutiny of proposed amendments. 
Paul Quinn 
: Is that all? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: “Is that all?” is pretty revealing of the attitude of the Government to using proper processes so that we do not make mistakes as to law. 
I will give members just one instance and I have time in this call to develop only the one instance although there are lots of others that I want the Minister to comment upon. The definition of “common marine and coastal area” in clause 7 as it came to the select committee stated that excluded from the definition of common marine and coastal area was “(b) any area that immediately before the commencement of Part 2 is both owned by the Crown and also has a status of any of the following kinds:” and then it listed conservation areas within the Conservation Act national parks reserves within the meaning of the Reserves Act and wildlife management reserves. The Minister has already talked about paragraph (c) of the definition relating to Te Whanga Lagoon in the Chatham Islands but he has made no reference to the changes being made to paragraph (b) and the reason therefore. I have some questions for the Minister because I am actually not sure what the import of this amendment is. 
I had a call today from someone who said that the effect of this amendment is to exclude from the exclusions areas such as the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park. The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act created a marine park that extends from the Firth of Thames out to Little Barrier Island and Great Barrier Island. Those islands no doubt include areas of foreshore and no doubt there are areas of seabed that are also affected by the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act. I would have thought given that preceding that Act those areas were vested in the Crown that those areas would be protected under the existing definition that came to the select committee and that those areas would be outside the areas for which there could be claims of customary marine title. Now this has been changed by Supplementary Order Paper 207 it seems so that those areas—and this is a big area; the whole of the Firth of Thames or a substantial part of it as I understand it out to Great Barrier Island and Little Barrier Island—