Goudie Sandra: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17077] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I have been attempting to take a call since 7 o’clock this evening. I want to take up the point raised earlier in regard to tikanga Maori. New clause 42 “Determination of applications for customary rights orders” states in subclause (1) that an order may be made “in accordance with the provisions of section 42A” if the activity use or practice: “(i) is and has been since 1840 integral to tikanga Maori; and (ii) has been carried on exercised or followed in accordance with tikanga Maori” and “(iii) continues to be carried on exercised or followed in the same area of the public foreshore and seabed in accordance with tikanga Maori;” and so on.  
I share the same concerns that were expressed previously. I think it is inappropriate to have the words “tikanga Maori” here because the definition of tikanga in the Historic Places Act which is being referred to is “Maori customary values and practices”. Those values can mean any number of things. We explored the definition of tikanga Maori during the passage of the Building Bill. In that legislation a building consent can be assessed in accordance with tikanga Maori if someone appeals and wants a redetermination of somebody else’s consent. In my view that was absolutely inappropriate. Given the broad definition for tikanga Maori meaning “Maori customary values and practices” which will have precedence? Will “tikanga Maori” have precedence over those matters referred to in new clause 41 given that if it is integral to tikanga Maori that is part of the determination for a customary rights order? Given the breadth of what that could mean I firmly agree with the views expressed earlier that it is absolutely inappropriate for the term to be in a legislative document that the nation will be subjected to.  
I also refer people to new clause 43 which talks about the effects of a customary rights order and identifies that a commercial benefit from carrying out a recognised customary activity under the order is able to be entered into. So a commercial benefit can be gained from that customary activity under the order. Perhaps the Minister would take a call and explain what that actually means and how other people will be affected. Certainly it is interesting to note that a commercial benefit can be undertaken.  
In terms of the protection of wahi tapu I certainly agree that there needs to be respect for wahi tapu in some instances. However it is of concern when people in their largesse insist upon a wahi tapu of metaphysical form and impose that cultural belief upon others in the exercise of their private property rights through a resource consent—and make claims against their private property rights in the exercise of a resource consent costing those people thousands of dollars with no real justification other than that a song may have been sung on that site. A private individual was just about bankrupted from going about his lawful business because of a song claimed as a wahi tapu. It is absolutely abhorrent to this nation that cultural beliefs are being imposed upon people who do not share those beliefs. It is an absolute travesty that is being perpetrated in law by this Government and being constantly imposed on private property owners going about their lawful business. That has happened a number of times and has substantially affected people. I do not support having people’s cultural beliefs imposed on others. If people do not share them they should not have them imposed on them.  
In talking to new clause 43B with regard to wahi tapu I point out the provisions in subclause (3).