Calvert Hilary Jane: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Calvert Hilary Jane: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17221] 
HILARY CALVERT (ACT) 
: 
 I will talk about three things in relation to Part 1 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. I want to talk about the seabed airspace and accommodated activities.  
I will start with the seabed. Historical use of the seabed any significant distance from the shore seems impossible to prove and allowing title to be granted to iwi allows for unjust and potentially divisive future claims. Historically no one has crawled about on the seabed miles from shore. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: How do you know that? 
HILARY CALVERT 
: There is no chance of anybody holding their breath on the seabed from 1840 till now—that just cannot happen. From the 18th century to the 20th century the Commonwealth generally considered territorial waters to extend for 3 nautical miles. That distance was the length of a cannon shot and thus the distance of water a nation could defend from—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Hon John Boscawen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to have to interrupt my colleague but I am hearing harangues from Labour Opposition members. I also have to listen to continued interjections from Tariana Turia. The reason I specifically object is that when I gave my speech in the first reading debate Tariana Turia lodged a point of order objection to me complaining— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member must address those matters at the time. We do not deal with historical matters here. I will deal with the matter of noise in the Chamber. This is a reasonably impassioned debate and at times the noise levels have come up and gone down. Overall I think the noise levels are reasonably acceptable but from time to time I need to caution members and I think we need just a bit of decorum and a wee reminder of that. 
HILARY CALVERT 
: The Hon Turiana “Turei” seems to believe that— 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. If the member is going to use my name she can pronounce it correctly. I am offended that she does not. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is correct. Members need to take a bit of care about these matters. 
HILARY CALVERT 
: My apologies. The member who interjected suggested that I do not know whether somebody could have held their breath on the seabed since 1840. Perhaps I do not know and perhaps she does not know either. 
As I was saying we have had territorial waters extending to 3 nautical miles. That distance is the length of a cannon shot and was what people could defend. Putting aside the distinct lack of cannons in 1840 and any ability for anyone living in New Zealand at that time to defend even that region it is quite clear that nobody has ever had the exclusive use and occupation of the seabed beyond that mark—let alone to the 12 nautical mile limit that came in only last century. It should therefore be near to impossible to grant any title to any iwi claiming such rights. That does not mean however that the courts do not know something I do not and that aspect of that legislation should not be tried by the courts. 
I turn to the airspace. The bill’s explanatory note states that the foreshore and seabed is “the area from the high-water mark at mean high-water spring tides extending seawards for 12 nautical miles. This area includes the subsoil and the waterspace and airspace above this area (but not the air or water itself).” What is the airspace? ACT wants the foreshore and seabed issue to be left to the courts where it belongs but in a perverse way we may get our wish. One can see the definition of airspace going to court time and time again as we are forced to deal with questions like whether paragliding businesses will have to pay whenever they take somebody paragliding in the airspace—or the air? How tall does a ship’s mast have to be before it is in the airspace? What about surfcasters who throw their lines across the air into the water? It may sound crazy but for those directly affected by this bill—those whose livelihoods are at stake—it is very serious indeed. 
The third point I would like to make— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Tonight we are witnessing the discovery of a new planet. It’s time to go home. 
HILARY CALVERT 
: Certainly the honourable interjecting member can take a call any time he wants to if the Chair allows it. The definition of “accommodated activity” has been changed on Supplementary Order Paper 207 put forward by the Minister in the chair Chris Finlayson. The definition no longer includes activities that can be lawfully undertaken without resource consent. In practice this will mean that activities that never needed resource consent may be controlled by the holder of a customary marine title. The intention of the bill was to allow things that were already going on to continue and for anything that currently has resource consent to be able to continue. I am sure the Minister is a meticulous person so presumably he left out on purpose the definition that included—