Boscawen John: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Boscawen John: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17209] 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chair for the opportunity to speak on this part. My colleagues the Hon Heather Roy and Hilary Calvert also wish to make a contribution. In a short time I will address certain definitions in the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. In particular I will refer to the definition of “marine and coastal area” which is set out in clause 7 the definition of “planning document” which appears later in that clause the definition of “RMA permission right” and its implications also set out in clause 7 and the definition and significance of the meaning of “accommodated activity” which is at the beginning of that clause. But before addressing those very specific provisions of this part I need to make two general comments to put some of these issues in context. 
The first thing I will do is acknowledge the contribution earlier in this debate of Rahui Katene. She got up in this Chamber and said she was proud to be a daughter of Ngati Apa and went on to list a number of other iwi. And she should be proud—she should be absolutely proud. One has to look no further than the article that appeared in the  
New Zealand Herald  
last Wednesday penned by the Hon Pita Sharples and the Hon Tariana Turia in which they set out the details of this bill and its implications. One has only to read that article to realise how proud Rahui Katene should be and how proud the Maori Party should be. The passing of this bill will be the culmination of many years of activity. And the bill will pass; the Government has told us that it is committed to pushing it through. As Maryan Street has told us it will pass by the very very narrow margin of 62 votes to 59. This legislation is a major issue. I do not believe that its full implications are understood by the wider New Zealand population. In fact I am not even sure they are understood by the media. I urge all New Zealanders or certainly everyone listening to this debate to go to the online edition of the  
New Zealand Herald  
and read the article by Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples that was published last Wednesday. 
I will quote two sentences from it. They started by saying that “The new bill acknowledges that ALL coastal iwi have connections to the coast. Their mana tuku iho (inherent authority) entitles them to protect their wahi tapu and to be consulted on conservation and resource-management issues.” The interesting thing about that is it protects the rights of all coastal iwi. Does it protect the rights of all other New Zealanders who are not coastal iwi? Does it protect the rights of all other New Zealanders who have property on the coast? I have travelled up and down the country over the last 6 months trying to create awareness of this issue and when I spoke to the Taupo rotary club back in October I met a gentleman who told me that he can trace his ancestry back to the early 1800s certainly back to prior to 1840 when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed. His family owns freehold land and it can trace its ownership back to prior to the Treaty of Waitangi. The family still owns that land today. It has owned it for over 150 years. Under this bill his interests are not protected. His interests are not protected and his interests are not recognised. The National MPs sit there and shake their heads. All I can say to those National members is that they do not understand the provisions of this bill. Sadly the implications of not understanding those provisions and of not reading the many hundreds if not thousands of emails that have come in will dawn on them far too late. 
The second point I will raise before I get down to looking specifically at the implications of the definition of “common marine and coastal area” the implications of “planning document” and the implications of “RMA permission right” is about a reference made earlier this afternoon to the Coastal Coalition. Coalition members have been demonised in this debate. They have been accused by Mr Finlayson of spreading misinformation. Mr Finlayson has responded to the Coastal Coalition with a page set out on the Beehive website. All New Zealanders can go to the Beehive website. I imagine that Mr Finlayson is ashamed of what appears on that website. Under the heading “Setting the Record Straight” I read and New Zealanders will read: “You may have heard opponents of the Marine and Coastal Area Bill making inaccurate claims about the legislation. We want to set the record straight.” 
I encourage Amy Adams if she looks at nothing else to look at this single page. The Attorney-General recognises four specific issues. I could make some points on all four of them but in the interests of time I will make a point on just one which relates to Part 1 and the definition of “common marine and coastal area”. The article states that opponents claim that “The bar has been lowered on the qualifying criteria so anyone can apply”—“The bar has been lowered on the qualifying criteria so anyone can apply”. The Attorney-General says that “The most rigorous test is proving uninterrupted and exclusive use and occupation of an area of the common marine and coastal area from 1840 to the present day.” So “The most rigorous test is proving uninterrupted and exclusive use and occupation …” since 1840. “Many areas of New Zealand are not eligible because of this requirement.” 
Well most New Zealanders and I suspect most National members who will be voting for this bill would think that was a very tough test. It is a tough test but it is not actually the test. People do not have to prove that they have had continuous and exclusive occupation and the reason I say that is that under the very provisions of this bill it is acceptable for people who are not part of the claimant group to have fished in an area to have boated in an area and to have navigated through an area yet the claimant group can say that it has continuously and exclusively occupied that area. That is an absolute fiction; it is a charade to say that we are making the test continuous and exclusive occupation when in actual fact we are not. The tragedy is that members of the public will wake up to that fact. National is punting that they will not wake up to it until after the election on 26 November but that they will wake up I have no doubt. 
Let me turn now to the definition of “marine and coastal area”. As I said earlier the ACT Party has a number of amendments on this part that we want to speak to. We are proposing amendments for example to the definitions in clause 7 of “local authority” “mana tuku iho” “mineral” and “planning document”. Let us look at the definition of “marine and coastal area”. What is the definition of “marine and coastal area” set out in clause 7? The definition states “marine and costal area—(a) means the area that is bounded—(i) on the landward side by the line of mean high-water springs; and (ii) on the seaward side by the outer limits of the territorial sea;”. So the marine and coastal area goes from the high-tide mark to the outer limits of the territorial sea—it goes out 12 miles. 
The reason that is important is that the bill provides for a massive transfer of wealth from all New Zealanders to certain select iwi. Under the provisions of this bill it is assumed in the absence of information to the contrary that customary title is held in all seabed and foreshore in all areas of the marine and coastal area. The bill actually states that customary title lies with an iwi claimant and that it is up to the Government to prove that that is not that case—clause 105 is the significant clause. The reason I raise this issue is it has extreme significance. It has extreme significance for the definition of “marine and coastal area” and as a consequence for the definition of “common marine and coastal area” because under clause 105 it is up to the Crown to prove that customary title does not exist as opposed to the iwi proving that they have customary title. 
Another key definition is the definition of the Resource Management Act permission right.