Street Maryan: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Street Maryan: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17208] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I am almost at a loss to know where to begin in making a contribution on Part 1 of the terribly flawed Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. Not only is the legislation flawed but the process around it is flawed. 
I begin with a bit of rebuttal to the earlier ACT speaker Hilary Calvert even though she was speaking on the preamble. It astonishes me how far the ACT Party can go in offending just about everybody. Its members used to refer to tikanga as mumbo-jumbo. In debate on previous legislation when we have been passing laws about Treaty settlements they have referred to tikanga as mumbo-jumbo. But today we have heard it called Alice-in-Wonderland stuff in relation to this legislation. I am just astonished at how far the ACT Party is prepared to go to offend as many people as possible. 
In this legislation—and I come to Part 1 which is the part under discussion at the moment—there is such a divergence of opinion united only in its opposition to this legislation. It must almost be unprecedented in this Committee. More people disagree with this legislation from a variety of positions around the country than agree with it. Sometimes National has wanted to characterise the opposition to this bill as being all ACT members. I dare say ACT wishes it had as many members as that. I have in my in-box filed under the title “Foreshore and Seabed” 250-odd emails that oppose this legislation for a variety of reasons. 
We come to clause 4 in Part 1 of this bill which states: “The purpose of this Act is to—(a) establish a durable scheme to ensure the protection of the legitimate interests of all New Zealanders in the marine and coastal area of New Zealand;”. This legislation palpably fails to do that. We have been given assurances that there will be a revisiting of this legislation. I am sorry that the Minister in charge of the bill the Attorney-General has been compelled—by others I suppose—to bring this legislation to the Chamber in this way at this time when the country’s interests are rightly diverted to Christchurch. He is being compelled to bring this legislation to the Chamber and to persist with it when it will clearly not satisfy a whole range of people and a whole range of interests. 
I draw attention to why this scheme will not be durable. I say to the Minister in the chair the Attorney-General that I wish this were going to be a durable scheme. Nobody wants a durable scheme more than we do. We got the last legislation wrong in respect of stripping the right to go to court to have claims tested. We got that wrong and we have said so and we have apologised. That remains on the record. We have also said that we want a durable scheme. We want to establish a durable outcome to ensure the protection of the legitimate interests of all New Zealanders. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: A durable scheme on your terms however. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Not on our terms I say to Mr Mapp but on mutually agreed terms. This Government will ram this bill through by a margin of 62 to 59. Those were the numbers in the last vote a few minutes ago. It does not augur well for clause 4 of Part 1. It does not augur well. It is being passed by a margin of three votes. For something as important as this bill—which should be durable testable able to withstand criticism and able to be justified to everybody across the country—three votes is not a sufficient margin by which this legislation should pass. It is too important. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: We’re not listening and we don’t care. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Oh Mr Henare has just said the magic words “We don’t care.” Mr Henare has just said the magic words. The National Party does not care about the interests of all New Zealanders. 
Pita Sharples has said that the Maori Party is not entirely happy with the bill and neither are iwi leaders or the general public. I will pick up one part of that which also goes to the question of how durable this legislation or this scheme will be. Not one iwi—not one iwi—around the country supports this legislation. Mark Solomon and the iwi leaders have said that they oppose this legislation. He has said that to me personally. I have heard him say it. Not one iwi around the country supports this legislation. 
Let us go to the comments of Te Ururoa Flavell from the Maori Party. He has said that we will be going back. “We will … be looking at it again” he said publicly and he said there would be “another time for our people to come back and have another go in the future.” 
I say to the Minister that I wish this were a durable scheme. I wish this legislation acted in the interests of all people. But the opposition to this bill comes from right across the political spectrum from the offensive comments of ACT right through to iwi leaders. It comes from right across the political spectrum. That opposition makes this legislation faulty fragile and able to be undermined in a moment. That is what will happen to this bill. 
We have an opportunity to get this right. This bill does not need to be rushed. It certainly does not need to be rushed under cover of the Christchurch earthquake. It does not need to be taken at this pace. The select committee process did not need to be aborted in the way that it was. The select committee members did not need to have legal advice denied them. The fact that the Government has Simon Bridges on its side of the select committee does not constitute independent legal advice. It does not constitute independent legal advice. 
If one were to look at the departmental report one could see quite clearly from page 59 that a number of submitters— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: This member wasn’t even at the select committee. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: But I have looked at the report—which some of the members of the select committee might have done well to do—and I can see that a number of submitters were concerned that the bill as it had finally emerged was not the same as the Government’s proposals set out in its consultation document. More time needed to be taken on this for the integrity of the legislation and for the integrity of the process. 
The process is a travesty. The fact that Mr Henare does not care is a travesty. This legislation which could have had the complete support of this entire Parliament has been an opportunity lost. I am sorry that it is an opportunity lost I tell the Minister; it could have been better than this. I am sorry that the Minister has been rolled in this process. It did not need to happen like this and the select committee process did not need to be impaired and aborted in the way that it has been. What we have here will not deliver the purpose of this Act.