Hide Rodney: General Debate 
Hide Rodney: General Debate 
[Volume:667;Page:14427] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. I am very proud that the ACT Party is the only party in this House that has had the same position on the foreshore and seabed legislation from day one while every other political party has flip-flopped from one side to the other. The ACT Party has stuck to its principles and the principles are these: to stand up for New Zealanders’ property rights to stand up for the rule of law and to stand up for one law for all. That is why we opposed the Labour Government’s move to torpedo iwi and hapu rights to have their day in court. That legislation was wrong and the ACT Party opposed it. Iwi like all New Zealanders should be able to have their day in court. What Labour did was a travesty. 
When National and the Maori Party came to see the ACT Party about what should be done the ACT Party’s view was simple; it was to repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act to use Parliament to return iwi and Maori to their position pre-2004 that allowed iwi and Maori to go the High Court and to legislate for free public access. That was ACT’s position in 2004; that is ACT’s position in 2010. That is ACT’s position now and it is a principled position on the rule of law. 
We thought the foreshore and seabed legislation was a shocker; the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill is far far worse. It defines an entirely new set of statute-made property rights. It sets up a process that enables the New Zealand coastline our foreshore and seabed to be carved up and privatised across iwi hands so that not only do they own the foreshore and seabed but they control its use because they become the consenting authority. No other New Zealander can do that; that is wrong. Iwi should be able to go to court and seek customary title and not have Parliament define what that customary title is. 
But it is far worse than that because the foreshore and seabed legislation enables iwi to go and see the Attorney-General and negotiate a settlement rather than go to court— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Do a deal! 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Dr Hutchison is absolutely right. Iwi are able to do a deal behind closed doors to say: “Hang on how much do you think we should own of the foreshore and seabed?”. The Attorney-General is on record as saying that National thinks it should be about 10 percent which is about 2000 kilometres of coastline. So according to the Attorney-General iwi would own 2000 kilometres of coastline. How did the Attorney-General come to that figure? How did the Attorney-General hold it to 2000 kilometres? What mandate does any Government have—does this Parliament have—to establish ownership rights in the foreshore and seabed and have those rights granted politically in a Minister’s office? ACT says “None!”. That is divisive it is discriminatory and it is against the rule of law. It is against one law for all. The only principled position for this Parliament to adopt is to say that of course iwi Maori— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Oh oh—principled? You couldn’t spell “principled”. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: —even Clayton Cosgrove—can have their day in court. 
The Court of Appeal decision was plain. The court said that of course iwi could have their day in court but it did not think they would succeed because it is tough to prove customary title. The Government is saying not to worry about that; the Government will drop the threshold so that Maori can meet it. The Government can hand across the coastline and no one even needs to go to court. They can just pop into Chris Finlayson’s office and he can sign on the dotted line. That is wrong.