Finlayson Christopher: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — Third Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17649] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 The third reading of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill marks the end of more than 2 years of consultation and policy development on a matter that has troubled this nation for many years. Today this House will repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 and replace it with new legislation that recognises and protects the interests and rights of all New Zealanders to the common marine and coastal area. It will confirm the right of public access without charge to that area. It will protect the rights of coastal navigation port activities other infrastructure and access to minerals. And it develops a way in which Maori can seek to have their interests and rights protected on an equal basis. That recognition and protection will include recognition of mana tuku iho status for iwi and hapu to acknowledge ancestral connections with specific parts of the common marine and coastal area. It allows for the recognition of customary rights associated with the exercise of longstanding activities and it gives iwi hapu and whanau the right to seek customary title to specific parts of the common marine and coastal area to which they have had longstanding and continuing connections subject to the continuing right of access. 
It has been said at various times during the debate that the Government was rushing things or was not taking enough time. Indeed just a few minutes ago Hone Harawira was asking again for the bill to be delayed in favour of a long conversation. Well we have already had a long conversation. The ministerial review panel which recommended repeal of the 2004 Act was set up 2 years ago and reported in June 2009. The bill we debate today has been before the House for 6 months. One thing that has become very clear over those 6 months is that noise does not always equal principled opposition. But for all the noise what emerged during the debate of the Committee of the whole House was that there is consensus among nearly everyone in this House on the most important points—in particular the repeal of the 2004 Act; in particular the restoration of the right of iwi to seek customary title. 
There have been points of difference between the parties but I think those differences have narrowed as the debate has gone on. As I said we agreed that the right to seek recognition of customary title must be restored. Then there was the narrow issue of how we provide for that access to justice. The bill provides guidance for the courts based on the remarks of the Court of Appeal in the Ngati Apa case the experience of Commonwealth jurisdictions such as Canada and our shared understanding as New Zealanders of the importance of beach culture and manaakitanga. The alternative proposal would be to repeal the existing law and leave the courts to piece together the tests and awards of customary title from scratch. But that would probably take years to achieve and lead to uncertainty. 
We believe certainty is important. That is why codification of the tests and awards is necessary. Indeed that was the view of many submitters to the Maori Affairs Committee considering the bill. It was also the view of former Attorney-General Michael Cullen. In Labour’s extremely good submission to the review panel in 2009 he wrote that the goals of certainty and equity demanded that tests and awards should be codified in the legislation and I agree with Dr Cullen. On a number of occasions I have acknowledged Dr Cullen’s submission and thanked him for his very positive contribution to the debate. Today I record my thanks to him for his help. 
In all my consultation I never once met one iwi leader who wanted to stop the public from going on to any customary title area. This set of values about the marine and coastal area is shared by all of us and is expressed in the fact that Labour and the Greens would also legislate for free public access and the inalienability of customary title. 
Parliament created this problem in 2003-04 following the court ruling on the Ngati Apa case. It is incumbent on Parliament now to provide a solution and to put things right. We cannot sit by and shrug our shoulders because it may be a difficult task. It is very easy to sit on the sidelines and snipe as the Green Party did. The Green Party has not made one positive contribution to the debate. Third-rate sloganeering is not a contribution. I have some very friendly advice for the ACT Party members who have been schizophrenic on this issue not knowing whether to be tea partiers or classical liberals—Sarah Palin or Margaret Thatcher. Choose Margaret Thatcher! Choose classical liberalism! It is a much classier brand. 
In the end I think we have struck the right balance. I note that in the report last year of the UN special rapporteur James Anaya he wrote that the bill represents a notable effort to reverse some of the principal areas of concern of the 2004 Act. 
Today I pay tribute to the Maori Party for always holding firm to its principles. Working with my colleagues in the Maori Party on this issue has been the highlight of my time in Parliament. They have achieved repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 and no one can take that away from them. I particularly mention the Hon Tariana Turia. She has shown quiet dignity and courage in support of her convictions. She does not seek the headlines. She does not need to rant to get her views across; rather she approaches issues fairly and with the gravity they demand. She is a great New Zealander and a class act. 
I acknowledge the leader of the United Future party Peter Dunne. He has taken a principled approach on this debate from 2003 onwards. He has been of great assistance to me as we worked to find a just solution. I thank David Parker Parekura Horomia Mita Ririnui Kelvin Davis and Shane Jones for their contributions during the Committee stage of the bill. I have great respect for those parliamentarians. We disagreed on a few key issues but I agree with David Parker that the debate on their part was devoid of hyperbole and rancour. It was a very positive contribution. That is why I am mildly disappointed with Shanes Jones’ somewhat resentful and waspish contribution this afternoon. Having said that however I congratulate Mr Jones on his outstanding amendment. It was so good that it was unanimously accepted by the Committee. Finally I acknowledge the hard work of the officials in the Ministry of Justice and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. I thank them for their outstanding efforts. 
Today we move to settle an issue that has troubled our nation for a long time but I am confident and I genuinely believe that this legislation recognises the interests of all New Zealanders in the common marine and coastal area. It rights a wrong that occurred in 2004. It represents a just solution to a difficult problem. I commend the bill to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill be now read a third time.