Roy Heather: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Roy Heather: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17215] 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to Part 1 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. I would like to concentrate on two clauses in this part of the bill. The first is the outline of the Act which is clause 3 in particular. I think this is also relevant to clause 7 which covers the definition of common marine and coastal area. 
Under this bill the assumption is that iwi and hapu have customary rights over all the common marine and coastal area unless the Crown can prove otherwise. Of course this is the new terminology for what we previously knew in the foreshore and seabed legislation which was debated under the previous Labour Government. Iwi and hapu have customary rights over all common marine and coastal area unless the Crown can prove otherwise. One of the things that ACT through all iterations of this debate since the 2004 legislation has talked about is that everybody who feels they have a genuine ownership bid should be able to have their day in court so that is relevant to that point. Also the bill contends that iwi have guardianship ahead of all others. To my mind the crux of the matter relates to property rights. There were a number of submissions to the Maori Affairs Committee that talked about property rights. That is always the yardstick that I use when we think about how we proceed how law is put in place how we deal with things particularly before the courts and when the courts should be the decider if you like of who has genuine ownership. 
I will probably run out of time in this call to talk about property rights but there are a number of issues that should be considered when we look at the detail of this bill. I think the bill is being justified to Pakeha and the public generally speaking largely on the basis of what will happen to the coastline in the future. Of course there are large areas of coastline that should be protected from development and exploitation. I do not think there would be any dissension in the Chamber from that view at all. Reserve status is justified for it for example but we should not forget that we have one of the largest coastlines in the world and alongside that one of the lowest population densities and a declining economic capacity to maintain First World health education and infrastructure systems. Stephen Franks submitted to the select committee that he deplores the absence of any proper defence of genuine property interests in coastal areas and I have to say that on that point I agree with him. 
The bill creates—some would say covertly—a form of exploitation right for some iwi and hapu. Those rights in areas where they can get marine titles can easily be supported but the circumstances of creation of those titles could simply discredit any kind of status other than reserve. They do not give their owners the true owner’s stake in preserving the long-term value of their interests. That is something that I think we in this Chamber should be genuinely concerned about. In that respect I welcome the debate that we are having today. 
I think the bill is promoted without any proper defence of true property interests for Maori. It might well surprise many of those on the Opposition ranks to hear me talk about that. But the bill removes such interests from local authorities and even from current lease or licence holders. The bill should have been I would have thought for a National Government an opportunity to strengthen true property rights for everybody all citizens of this country whether they be Maori or non-Maori. 
We should also consider as a general part of this debate why we have property rights why they are important and why they are a fundamental grounding of our legal system and what we stand for. Property rights protect minorities against majorities so that those who have the money the wealth and those who have the ability for whatever reason to wield a big stick are not able to do so to the detriment of those who have a genuine property right.