Davis Kelvin: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee 
Davis Kelvin: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:17506] 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 When debating the title and commencement clauses of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill there is really only one alternative title that should be considered and that is the “Foreshore and Seabed Act (Mark II) Bill” because there is no substantial difference between this bill and the previous Act the Foreshore and Seabed Act of 2004. The only real difference is that Maori will have access to the courts. But the Maori Party is confusing access to the courts with access to justice and Maori do not feel that they have access to justice. That is why today a hikoi turned up in the grounds of Parliament. There is a significant number of Maori who do not feel that they have access to justice because of this bill. It is a Clayton’s repeal—it is the repeal we have when we are not really repealing anything. 
Access to the courts and access to justice are two totally different things. This bill is the best the Maori Party could do. This is the best they could do—they can get Maori to go to court but they cannot guarantee justice because the hurdles Maori have to jump over are too difficult and will not actually get them what they believe they deserve. This bill is a Clayton’s bill; it is the “Foreshore and Seabed Act (Mark II) Bill”. 
Now that the Maori Party members have ticked this off their list what is next for them? They have put all of their energy into this bill. It is a bill that has basically torn them asunder. What is next? Our people out there have more issues. We do not want to be relitigating this issue every 3 years. I will read out what was reported on 8 September 2010: “The Maori Party will not rule out using post-election negotiations to try to get a better deal on the foreshore and seabed despite agreeing to support the National Party’s new law.” So what they are saying is that post-election they will be dredging this up again dredging it up over and over again every 3 years. Maori have had enough of relitigating these types of issues. It is time for us as Maori to move forward not to keep bringing up this type of issue over and over again. John Key said he believed it was “a lasting solution to the matter and would not be revisited.” We heard Te Ururoa Flavell say that this bill was the best that the party could negotiate in the circumstances and that it was possible that there would be “another time for our people to come back and have another go in the future”. We have missed an opportunity; we have missed an opportunity to settle this issue once and for all. Instead we have the prospect of coming back every 3 years to relitigate it to raise it over and over again when we cannot afford as Maori to do that. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Are you going to make the test easy? No. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: We need to focus on the issues that are really hurting Maori such as Maori unemployment. Under the National Government of which Tau Henare is so proud Maori unemployment has gone backwards and New Zealand has gone backwards. What will the Maori Party and National do about Maori teenage pregnancy rates or Maori suicide rates or Maori incarceration rates? These are the issues that we need to be debating and making decisions about so that our people can rise up from the bottom of the pile and get to the top of the pile where we deserve to be. 
I ask the Maori Party what is next now that it has ticked this issue off the “to do” list. What is it that will really move us forward as a people? We have heard about Whanau Ora. In the Maori Affairs Committee I asked these questions: what exactly would Whanau Ora change or improve what was the current baseline data and in 5 years’ time what would show us that Whanau Ora was making a difference? The officials could not answer those questions. They do not know exactly what Whanau Ora will address. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: No idea. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: They have no idea. They do not know by how much it will improve. All they know is that this undefined problem will be improved by an undefined amount. They do not know who will do it and who will do what. All they know is that it will cost $134 million over 4 years. It is a bit like Tariana Turia announcing that she is going to build a bridge. She does not know where the bridge will start where it will end how long it will be how many lanes wide it needs to be and what it will be constructed of. All she knows is that it will cost $134 million. 
I ask the Maori Party now that they have ticked this legislation off their “to do” list—for now—what the next item on their “to do” list is how they will help lift Maori off the bottom of the pile and how we will move ahead as a people. We deserve better from this House. We should not be relitigating this type of issue over and over again. We need to focus on those issues that are hurting Maori. Those are my questions for the Maori Party. 
This bill should have only one name and that is the “Foreshore and Seabed Act (Mark II) Bill”. It is the bill that just repeats what has happened in the past. It does not give Maori access to justice which is what the crowd today was marching for. All it does is give them access to the courts but it means that the hurdles that they jump are no different; the result is no different. 
I want to bring up again the issue about wahi tapu. John Boscawen mentioned wahi tapu once more and I struggle to see how many wahi tapu have the potential to be excavated as we heard today when these wahi tapu that we are talking about are all below the high-tide mark. There may be wahi tapu that have eroded into and become part of the common marine and coastal area but I can really think of only one wahi tapu that would not be eroded and that is the example I raised of the Mataatua waka sitting somewhere out in Takou Bay. That I would consider to be wahi tapu. Who will ever drive their digger out there and excavate it? Who will ever have a picnic there? 
Hon Tau Henare 
: This is 2011 not 1611. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: I do not understand what the concerns are with this bill— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: For goodness’ sake. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: —preventing people from walking along the coast walking along the beach or walking to wahi tapu. [ 
Interruption 
] If the Hon Tau Henare were listening he would know I am backing up his party’s line. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Sit down and vote for the bill. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: I tell the Hon Tau Henare that I am backing up this part of the bill. I do not understand the hysteria of the likes of the Coastal Coalition. They say that as there will be so many wahi tapu along the coastline people will be prevented from accessing the beach. We are talking here about the area below the high-tide mark and it is suggested that wahi tapu will all be in the sand dunes and that people will be prevented from walking across the sand dunes. To me it is nonsense; it is a bit of a red herring. It is just one of those issues that have been raised throughout New Zealand to generate fear and loathing about Maori. 
I also take issue with the point that Mr Boscawen made that it has not been exclusive as people have been able to fish in particular areas and swim in particular areas. It sounds like what he is wanting is for Maori to have excluded people since 1840 from areas of the coast in which case Maori would be bagged by all and sundry if we had been exclusive if we had blocked areas off. We would have been hammered by mainstream New Zealand for not allowing people on to the beach. Now because of our generosity we are being slammed and the argument has been undermined that because of Maori generosity—Maori allowing people access to the foreshore and seabed—somehow we should not now be allowed to have that exclusivity clause in the bill. I think that what the Hon John Boscawen said is at odds with what he wants in the future. He has said that if in the past Maori had been exclusive and prohibited people from accessing the foreshore and seabed for fishing and swimming in particular places then we would have a right to now exclude people. I do not see the logic of that argument. I think that Maori have been handicapped in this argument through our generosity in allowing people to have rights to the foreshore and seabed.