Quinn Paul: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee 
Quinn Paul: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17427] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou. It is a great pleasure to be able to record for  
Hansard  
that National has fought the good battle and won along with our coalition partner the Maori Party. It has given us support and shown us leadership on this particular issue which clearly is a very important issue to this nation. The Maori Party has been the shining light in this discussion in this conversation in this debate. I acknowledge both the leadership and the members of the Maori Party for showing the way and finding the solution that will last until Parekura and I are well gone from this earth to the gods in heaven. 
I also at this stage comment on and address the title of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. I was going to start my contribution by reflecting on the civility that has descended on this Chamber in this debate today. But unfortunately my taina my whanaunga from the last speech Mita Ririnui has started to take it to the line. He used words like “ignorance” and so on. It was uncalled for. We do not need those words in the concluding stages of this debate. I will set that aside as a little blip from an inexperienced young lad my younger relation who is not able to show leadership as I say. 
I will talk to the title of this bill and the commencement date. In my view the basic difference between the position of the Government and that of the major opposition—namely the Labour Party—is around issues of codification. I know my good friend and colleague David Parker in his contribution to the previous part of this debate made reference to the cost of negotiating settlements as opposed to going to court but I assure my friend that I have been through both systems. I have been through a court process and I have been through a negotiated process. Let me tell members that the most tortuous process is the court process without a doubt. Without a doubt the most tortuous process is the court process. 
In addressing the commencement of the codifications we have put into the this bill I will read a passage from the Chief Justice in her contribution to the finding in the Ngati Apa case. It goes to the heart of the reasons why we need codification. This is what Sian Elias wrote: “I agree with Keith and Anderson JJ and Tipping J that  
In Re the Ninety-Mile Beach  
was wrong in law and should not be followed.  
In Re the Ninety-Mile Beach  
followed the discredited authority of  
Wi Parata v Bishop of Wellington 
 … which was rejected by the Privy Council in  
Nireaha Tamaki v Baker 
”. Those cases date right back. 
The point I am making is that if we follow Labour’s solution and leave it to the courts I have no doubt at all that we will end up down the track in another 20 or 30 years with a new ground-breaking decision by a court. In the same way that the Ngati Apa case turned previous case law on its head it will do exactly the same. I have no doubt that down the track it will lead to a new decision that will take us in a completely different direction. The proposed Labour solution of letting the court decide provides no certainty and no predictability for the people today. 
That is what people want. They want to be able to go to sleep at night knowing that the foreshore and seabed is safe that they have free access and that they can actually go and recreate. That is what they want to know. In this bill by codifying we have been able to place a fence around the issues that the courts should focus on. That is all we have done. 
Everyone talks about it. My friends from ACT—such as John Boscawen whom I must admire for his tenacity although I say to him to let us just be friends with regard to his contribution—keep talking about Maori definitions. If they read the bill they would find that almost all the Maori definitions except for one are actually from other legislation where case law has already been developed in relation to those terms. The Resource Management Act defines and has case law developed in relation to most of the Maori terms. The bill refers to the Conservation Act the Historic Places Act and so on and so forth. 
I think there is only one—at most—new Maori term in the bill. In fact we have had a long discussion about tikanga. I thought about it yesterday; I should have brought my matua’s principled work from Hirini Mead who wrote a thick book on tikanga. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: That’s right. 
PAUL QUINN 
: You probably have a copy in your office e hoa. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: We don’t need those in Ngati Porou; it’s a living thing. 
PAUL QUINN 
: No no. This is for the Pakeha. This is for the Pakeha so they can understand. I am surprised that my taina did not produce it when he was talking about tikanga. My uncle has written the seminal piece of work on it. It is there for the courts to use as a guide. 
I will come back to the point. By codifying we can place a ring-fence around what the court can and cannot decide. That will be important as we go forward when this bill comes into force after the date on which it receives Royal assent. Once it comes into place we will have codification and that will enable us to go forward as a nation in peace and harmony. We can put behind us the scourge of arguments we have had in this Chamber. 
Thank you. It has been a great opportunity to contribute to this debate and I thank the Committee.