Mahuta Nanaia: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mahuta Nanaia: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17285] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak to Part 2. Having listened to earlier contributions I think the member for Te Tai Tokerau got it just about right when he highlighted where Maori opinion is with regard to this takutai moana legislation. He wrapped it up in eight succinct words: “This isn’t what we marched for in 2004.” The then aspirants and candidates for the Maori Party went out across the country to promote exactly what was wrong with the 2004 legislation and did so in many forums. With regard to Part 2 and specifically clause 11(2) when the concept of public domain was initially raised by Labour Maori did not like it and National did not like it so it went out. When the issue of Crown ownership was raised Maori did not like it yet all of a sudden the Maori Party is going out and promoting common space as if for some great and glorious reason or miracle Maori have all of a sudden changed their minds. 
I think the member for Te Tai Tokerau had it right: Maori did not like it then they do not like it now yet the Maori Party has changed its stripes. One thing we can always say about the member for Te Tai Tokerau in terms of where the Maori Party is at on this issue is that the member is absolutely telling the truth. Those members are finding it difficult to promote a bill that in their heart of hearts they know Maori do not want. There are inherently wrong concepts in this legislation that people did not like then and do not like now. The Maori Party should vote against the bill if it is being true to its word of having the moral mandate to represent the opinion of Maori in this Chamber. Those members campaigned long and hard in 2004 on the principles that they are now changing their stripes on and that is inherently wrong. 
There are specific issues in clause 11 that we should be debating. Subclause (2) states: “Neither the Crown nor any other person owns or is capable of owning the common marine and coastal area as in existence from time to time after the commencement of this Part.” I ask the Minister in the chair the Attorney-General a question in relation to his negotiations with the Maori Party in that respect. I ask what he was able to convince them of that was so much better than Crown ownership because every submission and certainly in the brief that we have had from officials highlights— 
Paul Quinn 
: Nanaia where does Tainui stand? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: Tainui stands where it has always stood and it will preserve its interests on much of the coastal area through the Treaty claims settlement process. That was the case in 2004 and that is the case now. 
Paul Quinn 
: They support it. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: I will debate that at any time anywhere with that member in my electorate. 
Coming back to clause 11(2) I ask the Minister how he was able to convince the Maori Party that common space was so beneficial to the interests of Maori when they assert their customary title interests. My reading of Part 2—and I stand to be corrected if the Minister would take a call—is that any customary title is secondary to the interests represented in the common space. For example none of the submitters highlighted that they were comfortable with the idea of common title. They said that it is largely symbolic and the fact that the Crown retains much of its authority over that space clearly highlights that customary title will be secondary to the intention of this bill. I would be grateful if the Minister took a call because the submissions highlighted those matters. There was not enough time in the Maori Affairs Committee to go through these matters in some detail with officials. I think that is the height of arrogance when submissions raise matters that are not responded to in the fullness of time to ensure a full lengthy and thorough debate. 
Paul Quinn 
: We had plenty of time. Some of us actually read it Nanaia. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: The member may call across the Chamber to try to shout me down but that same member will not debate these issues in my electorate which I challenge him to do at any time any place anywhere. I ask him to be there because I will be. 
Moana Mackey 
: It’d help if he would do some work-outs in this place. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: It would. It certainly would but that is not going to happen. 
Having had my speech interrupted because of Mr Quinn I will now highlight some of the issues related to the points made by Local Government New Zealand. I will cut straight to the questions because I think they hit at the nub of undertakings on divestment in clause 11(3). I ask the Minister what guarantee he will give to local authorities that land in the takutai moana area that was acquired after 2004 will be compensated for. I also ask how that compensation level will be set because my understanding of subclause (5) is that the takutai moana area is not a rateable area. I ask how the level of compensation will be set. When we have an opportunity for the Minister to respond on this matter I certainly think that Local Government New Zealand and a couple of local councils will be quite interested in his response. 
I also ask the Minister what happens to unformed roads in the coastal marine area and whether they will be included in terms of the divestment provisions of clause 11. I would appreciate it if the Minister would take a call and provide some clarity on this issue. For a number of local authorities the way to treat unformed legal roads is a vexed issue. I would appreciate it if the Minister would take a call on this matter. I know that submitters raised it as an issue. It would be helpful to get that clarification to provide a level of certainty to Local Government New Zealand on the matters it highlighted in its submission on the bill. 
I continue to say that one of the things I find absolutely incredible is the Maori Party’s changing of its stripes on the issue of common space. It is the one key point that I want to make in my first contribution to this debate. At the time when the issue of public domain was raised initially the then aspirants to the Maori Party were absolutely opposed to that concept. They were also absolutely opposed to the concept of Crown ownership but somehow or other somebody has said something to persuade them to say that common space is of far greater benefit to Maori than anything else. 
Maori Party members should stand in the Chamber and explain their position to at least the members of the House. It is all well and good to hold hui outside this place and try to promote something while everybody is saying: “Hang on you have changed your stripes.” but they are unable to present to the House as a coalition partner to the Government the principled basis on which they now support the idea of common space as contained in clause 11(2) in Part 2. They will not explain it to members. They are treating members with disregard and disrespect. That is the height of arrogance on a bill so important to the nation of New Zealand and so important in terms of ensuring what we had hoped would be a common opportunity for members across the House to find some common ground. Clearly there is not that opportunity and the Government will continue to ram this bill through. 
The Minister has those questions on the record. I hope that in the course of this debate he is able to respond to those questions. I believe that it is also beholden on Maori Party members to respond. Having the moral weight of Maori opinion on their shoulders they should demonstrate that they are true to their word will walk their talk and will make good on the commitments that they say are being supported by a number of Maori throughout the country. Clearly the member for Te Tai Tokerau has got it just about right: everybody has been duped by the Maori Party.