Foreshore and Seabed Bill

I move, That the Foreshore and Seabed Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the Foreshore and Seabed Bill be referred to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee for consideration, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during questions for oral answer, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).

The introduction of this bill represents a major step forward in resolving some complex legal uncertainties that resulted from a judgment last year by the Court of Appeal. Until last year, the great majority of New Zealanders understood it to be a settled principle that the public foreshore and seabed was owned by the Crown on behalf of all New Zealanders, with free access for recreational purposes under the appropriate safeguard of the Resource Management Act and other Acts of Parliament. So, too, most New Zealanders were aware of the special importance that parts of the public foreshore and seabed held for particular Māori, as a result of a long history of continuous use of and connection to that part of the coast. I believe that most New Zealanders respected those customs, and were happy to accommodate them and to modify their own use of the foreshore and seabed to allow that to happen.

What changed last year was the Court of Appeal’s decision in June that the Māori Land Court could hear claims to and investigate the ownership of the foreshore and seabed. That decision raised some fundamental questions of constitutional, administrative, and property law. To allow claims regarding the public foreshore and seabed to be heard by the Māori Land Court could have serious repercussions. The Māori Land Court operates under the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. That Act was intended to apply to dry land only, and is incapable of recognising a property right that stops short of fee simple title. The Act was not intended to apply to the foreshore and seabed.

At this point I need to make clear to the House, and indeed the country, just what the bill means by foreshore and seabed—indeed, what the law means. Firstly, it is talking about the public foreshore and seabed, not the very small parts held in private title—some of those held by Māori. Secondly, it is not talking about the sand dunes or all the beach, but only the area that is covered by the sea at high tide. Technically, it is the marine area bounded on the landward side by the high-water line at mean high-water spring tides, extending on the seaward side to the limit of the territorial sea. It also includes the air and water space above, and the subsoil and bedrock below, that.

A central aspect of the bill concerns the legal recognition and protection of customary rights, and that derives from the mainstream of our jurisprudence. Such rights are established by long practice, and by a continuous relationship between a community and a specific area of foreshore and seabed since 1840. It is certainly not envisaged that on long stretches of the coast long-dormant practices may be resuscitated and granted status as customary rights. The ability to seek legal recognition and protection for customary rights, based on uses or activities, will be open to any group of New Zealanders. The Government is not aware of the existence of any customary rights that may meet the statutory tests in the bill other than Māori customary rights, but nevertheless considers it appropriate to retain the capacity to explore that possibility in the courts.

Customary rights, once recognised, will be exercised and protected in the context of the legislation that regulates activities on the foreshore and seabed—the Resource Management Act, in particular. This bill includes several amendments to that Act. In particular, a customary right holder will be able to continue to exercise the customary right without obtaining a resource consent under the Act. Moreover, if another party seeks a resource consent for an activity that would have a significant adverse effect, in the opinion of the regional council, on the exercise of a customary right, then the application would—unless the customary right holder consented—be declined. In seeking ways to acknowledge customary rights, it is worth noting that not all solutions will lie in the law. General social norms of courtesy and respect for others also apply.

I have no doubt the bill enables applications to be made to the High Court to investigate the full extent of the rights that might have been held in common law. The court would apply the common law and it would be able to look at the full set of rights and interests in the claimed area as it made an overall assessment of whether the cumulative bundle of rights in that area would have amounted to full territorial customary rights. I note that in the comments made by the Court of Appeal, it thought that would be a relatively rare occurrence. If the court makes a positive finding, it will refer the matter to the Crown. The Crown has to undertake discussions with the group in good faith on redress. Redress could take a number of forms, as has been the case with regard to the negotiated settlement of well-founded historic treaty grievances. The Government is also prepared to talk to particular groups outside the framework of going to the court where it is satisfied that the court would have given a positive finding, and indeed we are already in discussions with Ngāti Porou on this matter.

It is unfortunate that in these last few months the debate on these matters has threatened to be sidetracked by those taking extreme positions that either excite irrational fears or promote unrealistic expectations. As I have said a number of times, the one thing that most people seemed to agree upon the day after the decision was that the Court of Appeal was wrong, and both Māori and Pākehā in large numbers seemed to agree that the Court of Appeal had ruled that Māori owned the foreshore and seabed. The Court of Appeal, of course, ruled no such thing.

In this context it is important to set out what the bill does not do, and also what it does do. The bill does not grant Māori with a recognised ancestral connection a power of veto over the coastline of New Zealand. Instead, it enables them to participate in regional planning for the public foreshore and seabed, in the same manner in which Māori have been involved across the country since the enactment of the Resource Management Act in 1991. The bill does not deny the customary rights that New Zealanders have long exercised in particular areas of the public foreshore and seabed. Instead, it provides a legal avenue for recognising and protecting those customary rights. The bill does not deny that in some cases those rights may have amounted to exclusive occupation and possession. Instead, it requires that discussions take place with the Crown on redress where the High Court has found that that would have been the case. The bill does not impose new access obligations on the owners of coastal properties. Instead, the bill establishes access rights in, on, over, or across the public foreshore and seabed, which is defined to exclude the very small, limited areas in private title. The bill does not establish a new avenue for legal aid. That will continue to be unavailable for group proceedings before any court, although the select committee may want to look further at that matter to ensure it is adequately covered. The bill does not affect property rights on land held privately above the foreshore—one-third of the land that is privately held above the foreshore is now in Māori hands. The bill does not affect in any way the jurisdiction of the Waitangi Tribunal, or the process for resolving historic treaty claims, or the outcome of that process in any particular case—for example, that of the remaining Tainui claims that were not settled in the partial settlement of 1995.

This bill delivers four-square on our promise to protect public access and clarify ownership. It gives effect to the four principles we set out at the beginning of this exercise: access, regulation, protection, and certainty. It provides a clear and unified system for recognising and protecting rights in the foreshore and seabed. It creates a fair and reasonable framework for working through individual cases in the context of a settled concept of Crown ownership on behalf of all New Zealanders. The bill will not satisfy everyone. I doubt that it is possible, given the contentious and complex nature of the issues involved, to do so, although I am sure that once the bill is properly understood many more people will be satisfied than are at present. But the bill does go a long way to addressing the concerns that have been raised. I note that National Party members did not go outside yesterday to explain to Māori that in the National Party’s view this bill gives everything to Māori. I heard that Mr Brownlee was hiding behind a pillar, but I know no pillar as large as that. I hope that New Zealanders take the time to examine and discuss the bill, and will suggest to the select committee any aspects of it that may be improved. I would hope, for example, that the select committee will also find some way to encompass the existence of the concept of the public domain in the way the Government intended it to be understood, and in a form acceptable to both New Zealand First and United Future.

It is important, above all, that we use the debate that this issue has provoked to bring us closer together as a nation, rather than further apart. It will be very much up to the members of this House whether that is so, or whether the debate is used as a vehicle for driving a further wedge between Māori and Pākehā.

I very much wish that I could rise to speak in favour of this bill, because it is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before the House this year. Over some years we have had a tradition of getting broad parliamentary consensus on treaty settlements, and that is something I strongly welcome. But, alas, I cannot support this bill, and the National Party will be voting against it. We oppose the bill because it creates confusion and uncertainty. It will increase, not decrease, racial tension, and it will compromise the effective management of the coastline and the seabed. New Zealand is at a time in its history when we should be looking forward, and not backward. We should be looking forward as one country—certainly of many peoples—and not looking back. The risk we face is that this law will not unite us; it will, in fact, create further division. We want to have a nation where we can go to the beach, where we can catch fish from a dinghy, and where we can establish a mussel farm, without regard to ethnicity.

This issue is a mess because the Government has mucked about for nearly a year. It has had no fewer than five different policies over that period. As a consequence, the Government has raised the expectations of Māori people, and the result of that we saw outside Parliament yesterday—and, indeed, we see it outside today. Having had their expectations raised, Māori people feel understandably upset because they perceive those expectations are being dashed. We needed decisive leadership, but that was lamentably absent.

The Minister pointed out that the bill provides for the Crown ownership of the seabed and the foreshore—

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: You would support that?

—and if that was all that it did, we would be voting for it. That is quite right. We would be voting for it, because that is consistently the position we have taken on this issue since the Court of Appeal decision last year. Indeed, ever since the 1860s it has been clear to New Zealanders that the Crown owned the foreshore and the seabed, and that those areas could not be alienated from the Crown without a specific Act of Parliament. That was widely understood by both Māori and other New Zealanders. The issue we debate today arises because of an inadvertent legislative slip-up in a bill that was initially drafted by the Labour Government of the 1980s and passed when National was the Government in the 1990s. That inadvertent error has come back to bite us, and it has led to the Court of Appeal’s decision last year. It was never the intention of this Parliament to have the seabed and foreshore in any ownership other than the Crown’s, except where fee simple title existed—and that, of course, is clear in the notes the Minister issued on this bill on 7 April.

National opposes this bill because far from simply correcting that inadvertent error, it creates a whole new raft of radical, new, legal instruments. Let us consider the new jurisdiction of ancestral connection, and the new jurisdiction of customary rights. If any Minister or any Government had proposed those measures before the Court of Appeal decision, they would have been dismissed out of hand. This legislation will make existing problems a lot worse, and it will give scope for a whole new era of the treaty grievance industry. It will make the Resource Management Act even more bureaucratic and even more costly with regard to the 2,500 coastal consents processed each year. It will create another area of law where we have different standards for New Zealanders, depending on their race.

The ancestral connection provisions are quite bizarre, and it is inevitable that they will end up covering a substantial part of the total coastline. In the Government’s own notes on this bill, issued on 7 April, it stated that recognition of ancestral connection would bring with it a strengthened ability to participate in decision-making processes over the relevant coastal area. If that is not an invitation to iwi who have such ancestral connection to demand some form of compensation from anyone who wants to access or use the seabed and the foreshore, I do not know what is. Ancestral connection is to be determined by the Māori Land Court, where there will be no right for non-Māori New Zealanders to have their say.

The new customary rights orders are also riddled with problems. Ostensibly those rights are given to both Māori and other New Zealanders, but, again, I read from the notes issued by the Government that to qualify to have a customary right recognised, the court must be satisfied “the application is made on behalf of an established and identifiable group, and the activity, use, or practice has to be integral to the culture of the group, has been exercised substantially uninterrupted since 1840 and continues to be exercised …”. Not a lot of non-Māori groups will qualify under those criteria. While the Government pretends this is an issue open to both Māori and non-Māori, the reality is quite different from that. Dr Bill Hodge, the constitutional law expert at Auckland University, said in relation to this bill that Māori have had a complete victory. Before the Waitangi Tribunal in January, the Solicitor-General talked about essentially the same issues and not very differently at all from Dr Hodge—using different terminology, but basically saying the same thing. The Solicitor-General said that basically this bill would give Māori groups a substantial power of veto over the use of the coastline.

I turn to the High Court orders for compensation. The bill provides that the High Court can not only investigate a claim but award compensation. All other treaty grievance models provide that Cabinet and Ministers, and not the courts, are responsible for settling any treaty grievance.

We oppose this bill because in essence it provides for a confused management of the seabed and the foreshore. Councils will not be responsible, the Government will not be responsible, and not even iwi will be fully responsible. The Crown may own the foreshore and the seabed, but de facto control will be with iwi. This bill gives Māori a poison pill they will get value from by interfering with the rights of other New Zealanders. That is a tragedy, because it tells Māori that their path to prosperity is by clipping the ticket. That is not the way to long-term prosperity. Worse still, the bill does that in a way that exacerbates, and does not improve, race relations in New Zealand. I wish I could support this bill. Sadly, we cannot.

Ngā reo, ngā mana, ngā waka, ngā pūkōrero o ngā hau e whā, rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[To the languages, authorities, canoes, spokespersons of the four winds, and the hundreds of chiefs, greetings, greetings, and greetings to you all.]

Rudyard Kipling once referred to people keeping their heads when all about them are losing theirs. One may well then ask the question that if Māori have had a complete victory, why were 20,000 pounding the streets outside Parliament yesterday? The sort of speech we have just heard defies all logic, all truth, and all reality. The truth is that from day one my party said that that which we understood to be the law would be the law when this debate was over—that the foreshore and seabed would be, as our people died for in two wars, in the hands of every New Zealander regardless of race, religion, or background. The previous speaker, Dr Brash, either does not understand this bill or is deliberately setting out to create mischief and to set one group of New Zealanders against the others—in other words, to divide and rule, or, to use Professor Palmer’s famous words, he is spreading rumour with malice.

I began my legal career acting for Māori on issues to do with land. My tribe, Ngāti Wai, knows full well that they will lose nothing whatsoever from this bill. If they were to lose something, we would be defending them. This legislation guarantees that all the people of New Zealand will own the foreshore and seabed, though Crown ownership, in perpetuity forever, for our children and millions of our children yet unborn. That is what this bill says. The term “perpetuity” is important. It means forever and ever.

I can see why that does not appeal to Dr Brash and his cohorts, because selling State assets is what his party is about. Which party decided to take things to do with our right for centuries and sell them to the highest bidder, and to have quota owned in perpetuity?

💬 Hon Member: National!

Well, no, those members there did, and those agreed, and before people march on the streets let us have some facts. Why does he fear this statement “in perpetuity”? Well, members should look at his record on selling State assets. Even now, his speeches favour that. It is clear that he wants the foreshore and seabed in Crown ownership, but only for a brief time until he has a chance to sell them. This guardian and protector of our assets and our treasures would have 10 million people from abroad in this country tomorrow, and pray tell me where our foreshore and seabed assets will be when that happens.

💬 Hon Member: What a hopeless speech.

I know he made a hopeless speech, but I would not have said so so close to the next election.

Customary rights relate to a specified activity associated with the seabed and foreshore such as the launching of a waka, the anchoring of a boat, the collecting of sand, or some other historical activity, and they will go on in perpetuity, regardless of race. Again, the test is that this activity must be demonstrably able to be proven before either the Māori Land Court for ease of costs, or the High Court in the case of non-Māori—and non-Māori are included. Where an ancestral connection order or a customary rights order is recognised it will be recorded on the register. People will know whose interests are there.

But here is the important point. Who wrote this term back in 1991? The people behind me wrote this term into the law in the Resource Management Act, for which they found such great favour in comparison with the clauses I am about to recite.

💬 Dr Don Brash: Where were you, Winston?

Where was I back then? Actually, I was about to be expelled from the National Party because I was against the sale of State assets, and on that record I will bow to no one behind me on standing up for what is right for New Zealanders. This is what National said about matters of national importance back in 1991. National members said they would recognise the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu, and other taonga. What does this bill say? This bill says only that the protection recognises customary activities.

If we heard that speech, we know that it is about cant, it is about deceit, and it is about misrepresentation. That is the fact. The vehicle on which National members have predicated their next election victory has just been swept from beneath them.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Oh, come on!

Those members can travel the country, make all the speeches to the Business Roundtable and the rotary clubs, and spread ignorance, but here we are talking about facts. It is fascinating, is it not, that under this bill Māori and non-Māori will be able to apply to have their ancestral connection to a particular tract of seabed and foreshore recognised. In fact, everyone will be the same. Dr Brash mischievously says that the Māori Land Court is likely to grant ancestral connection over the entire coastline, but he must surely have lawyers in his party who know that that is demonstrably and palpably untrue.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Margaret Wilson said that.

She may have said it in April, but the deal we have done with the Labour Party Government demands seven things, and all seven things are in this bill. So let us stop the humbug.

For applicants to the Māori Land Court to be granted an ancestral connection order they must demonstrate, through fact, that they have had largely a continuous and effectively unbroken link to that particular piece of seabed and foreshore, back to 1840. That is why Ngāti Porou is not protesting, and that is why a number of European institutions will not protest, either—because they can prove what I am saying to be a fact. National claims to be an Auckland party. What is the Auckland regatta if not something that was happening in 1840? The right of that whole community to hold one of the biggest days it ever holds will be preserved, as well.

I want to make this very, very clear, because it is very important. National Party members, of course, have their DNA, their blood, and their fingerprints all over this issue. They believe in the Yasser Arafat policy—create the mess, the havoc, the dissidence, the indifference, and the chaos, then claim, somehow, that all the solutions will not work. They have their DNA all over it. Every bit of this legislation about which they protest, and that is now being fixed up, is what they put in place. I know that full well. I can recall being expelled from their caucus for saying that. Here they stand, like Pontius Pilate wiping their hands of it—claiming to have no knowledge. If there are New Zealanders out there who do not understand that, they should seriously get to understand it in the next few months as we close to the 2005 election.

But who said this on Radio Pacific recently about customary fishing rights for Māori, which National put in the legislation? Don Brash said: “I am, ahh, comfortable with that.” That is what he said. Michael Laws asked him: “What about these pieces of legislation that precisely go far further than this bill?”, and he said, first of all, that he was comfortable with that, and then he said: “But I must apprise myself of the detail.” Someone who is 64, has been a governor of the Reserve Bank, and pretends to lead a party that might one day be the Government owes the country more than that. It might be difficult to find the parliamentary toilets, but this is no place to learn on the job. Either one knows one’s party’s record, or one does not. One thing I want to make very clear to every pretending National Party supporter is that he or she will know National’s record before the 2005 election, and that this bill is safe.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I point out that the only comments that may be made are from members of this House.

E tika ake anō i te mihi ake anō ki a koutou o te hau kāinga, te mana whenua, i a koutou mai i te motu i tae ake anō i roto i te āhua o te hīkoi. Tēnā koutou.

[It is fitting indeed that I should acknowledge those of you of the home winds, the authorities of the land, and those of you from up country who came in respect of the hīkoi. Greetings to you.]

Greetings to all our people who have made the effort to come here on the hīkoi.

We have just heard a very divisive statement by “Dr Divisive” in the sense of wanting to keep Māori in the dungeons of doom and gloom. That is what those members want to do to Māori. We need to understand, fundamentally and very pragmatically, from the outset that there is a tangata whenua in this country, and it is Māori, and that the issue that is relevant to this bill is quite clear in our minds. It is a tuku-ed, treasured passing on to us. It is, quite clearly, about kaitiakitanga o Tangaroa, not the ownership of the ocean or the sea. That came with Captain Cook. Our people have this tuku-ed to them, to our mokopunas, by our ancestors, and we do have the customary right in this country, as the first-nation people in this country.

I say that this issue is a sign of a healthy democracy, and I want to pay respect to the hīkoi yesterday because those people got out there and are unafraid to challenge Governments. This Government will not sway or move away from recognising the customary rights and the peoples who are the tangata whenua in this country. We are a Government that is prepared to face up, and that is the context of this bill.

We need to understand some things in the sense of what is relevant to Māori from our view as Māori members on this side. In the sense of being a mokopuna who has gone around the rocks to ruku pūpū, to gather seafood, it is clearly something that was passed on to us by our tūpuna, and we want it to last.

There are three types of people whom “Dr Divisive” has been encouraging—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Minister is to refer to members by their name or their rank, not in that way. The Minister will withdraw that comment.

I withdraw and apologise. There are people in this country who want to continue in contemporary times the nasty divisiveness; to leave it with the elite, to leave it with the privileged, and to have the tangata whenua left out. We do not want that carry-on. In 1992 the customary right was put in a regulated framework—the “Treaty of Wellington”. That is where the fishing right went. It was done without consultation, it was done in the dark in Wellington, and it was done by that party over there. At least we went out, and we stand by it.

In the sense of those types of people who are saying “Leave it as it is, because it is OK.”, well, that is a lot of hogwash, because at the moment the kai moana—seafood—is being depleted. The nasty take—the illegal take—is three times bigger than the customary take at the moment. The allocated take is struggling to find a regulated, average-sized pāua or kina in these modern days. It is terrible, and we want to do something about it. So leaving it as it is is not right. There are those who say we should leave it to the Crown in total. That is not right. There are those who are muscling up to create fee simple, which is about purchase and sale—one buys it and one sells it. At the moment we have Māori who are selling whenua that was tuku-ed to them. We have other races encouraging them to pillage the kai moana and sell it in Auckland in the dark. I want to make sure that my mokopuna can go there and get kai when she grows up.

The foreshore is that strip of land between the high-water mark and the low-water mark—nothing above it, nothing below it. No treaty settlement is interfered with or adjusted by this bill. This bill strengthens our customary right. It identifies it quite certainly, and creates an understanding that there is a tangata whenua in this country—something that some people want to ignore and deny. That is terrible and disgraceful.

Yesterday was an emotional day. It was the sight of Māori where they are now. Our demographics of 200 years of being colonised by other people are over. There is always the international well-known licence that tells one that the demographics of the colonised people are just, and it is totally driven by the majority. We are a very, very young race with a median age of 22. We have more 13, 14, 15, and 16-year-olds than older people in this country such as those members. It is really important to understand that. That is a technical truth: Pākehā are a more aged people than we are. So we, as the people who are here now, representatives in this House, have to make sure through platforms like this bill that we create a better lot for our people. It is quite simply that, irrespective of all those people who are telling us to sit down or leave. We have to stand up and do that, because we understand the process. Today is the first day of a long process where votes will be taken on the way through, over the next 6 or 7 months. Today is not the end. Today is the beginning in the sense of making us go forward—it is important to that.

Let me remind members about retention. Most of the Māori land that is still intact now was put into a regulated framework by Tā Apirana Ngata, and it has stood the test of time; whether it has gorse or manuka on it, it has stood the test of time, and we still have it. It is still in our possession. A lot that was left out was pre-pillaged by people who came as visitors to this country. It was ransacked. We were haemorrhaged by it. It was disgraceful. And our people have sold on in recent times—whenua that was tuku-ed to them, given to them by their tūpuna. If they have bought their house, bought their car, bought their land, kei te pai, but at the end of the day, with our young population, we have to ensure that we have documents like this and policies like this that will help our progress—and that we are not sitting where those members want us to be. Let me tell you, Māori have grown up. A lot of our assets are better managed. With all this scurrilous scandal that is around, it is important to get it into context.

I have heard the harping of the Māori affairs spokesperson on that side. There are a whole lot of summaries in here that are clear about the sense of the policy and the benefit for Māori. That is right; Dr Brash is dead right: we are trying to create priority for the tangata whenua through customary right. It needs to be recognised—that is right. We are saying that upfront. But those members are telling other New Zealanders that this is dastardly. It is fodder for your divisive policy. You are a disgrace in the sense of bringing—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I would be pleased not to be brought into the debate. I ignored it the first five times, but I must not be brought into the debate.

I withdraw. Some people in this country are divisive and disgraceful. They do not want Māori to go forward; they are used to their being behind. I am a 53-year-old Māori. I want to mihi to my elder here, Winston Peters. I am a 53-year-old Māori, and I will tell members what I am: I am from the last generation of children of manual labourers. Ninety-nine percent of my parents’ generation, like a whole lot of these people here, worked for the Ministry of Works, worked for the Post and Telegraph Department, worked for the freezing works, worked on the railways, and did all those great labouring jobs. They were loyal; they worked for 30 to 40 years. They were neither close to management nor close to enterprise, because other people kept them out of the opportunities.

Well, I want to tell members this. I have a 6-year-old mokopuna, and I have a young son at university. There are 1,375 Māori attending Otago University, and only 130 of them are doing a Māori paper. They are doing a whole lot of things, so “Move over!”. We want to be the business managers, we want to be the business owners, and we want to make sure that Māori have their rightful place as the first-nation people, the tangata whenua in this country, and we want to make sure that their customary right is recognised—not a whole lot of the hogwash that has been meted out by other people in the development of this country.

I tell members that Māori are going forward with or without hīkoi. There are a whole lot of other hīkoi to be made in education, employment, and housing, and this Government can be measured on what we are doing. We are not saying, to get a lead in the polls, that we want to do away with that. We are not saying we want to get rid of those issues that are good for Māori. We are not saying that Māori are irrelevant. We sure as hang are trying to function properly within the process of this House and make sure that our people get a fair say. That is what we are on about. If members are not used to their people telling them what they do not want to hear, then they had better get used to it, because that is what happens when one is a Māori member.

Certainly, we will be supporting this bill. We will be voting for it. We will stand the heat from our people and recognise it. We will not be playing divisiveness like those members over there are. If those members are serious about nationhood, then they should recognise the first nation—the tangata whenua of the people. If those members support better relationships in this country, they should support the bill. Do not go out there trying to claim it is namby-pamby—that is nonsense!

I allowed quite a lot of vigorous interjection then, but I think there was a bit too much towards the end. But I do not want to stop interjection; it is part of our democracy. Before I call the next speaker I have to advise that she and Metiria Turei are going split the call and each have 5 minutes. I will give a quick flick at 4 minutes 30 seconds, and then a bell at 5. I call Jeanette Fitzsimons.

The Green Party does not support this bill. It should be obvious by now that many thousands—[Interruption]

Order! I do not want to have any other comments made from the gallery. One hundred and twenty people were elected at the last election—they sit here. Members of the public are entitled in a democracy to listen. They are not entitled to participate, and all people in this House have to be given the right to speak. I ask that Jeanette Fitzsimons be heard by anyone other than those in the House in silence.

💬 JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: It should be obvious by now that many thousands of other New Zealanders do not support it either, and they are not just Māori. They have come from every corner of New Zealand: grandmothers and tiny babies, kaumātua and rangatahi; at least 15,000, and some say even 30,000 to tell us in this Parliament to taihoa. They cannot understand why this Government, which they have supported for decades, is doing this to them. The Prime Minister will not meet them. Yet they are her constituents—the loyal supporters and voters of the Labour Party—and they do not appreciate being told that they are opposed to the legislation only because they do not understand it. As I walked with them yesterday, I felt the power of their sense of betrayal, and also the power of their hope that this thing might still be turned round for the sake of all New Zealanders. It was a positive, good-natured hīkoi. People sang, hongi-ed, and hugged each other. I saw no violence and no hatred.

As I stood on the steps with my Green colleagues, I remember the last hīkoi to Parliament, which another Prime Minister refused to meet, and when another political leader was feted as the hope for the future. I remembered seeing the banner “No more asset sales”, and I remember the vote in Parliament just a few minutes before that to sell Contact Energy, including a quarter of our electricity generation and the water rights on the Clutha River. When New Zealand First members support this legislation, they might like to recall that their election promise not to sell State assets lasted only until they walked out of their coalition with National. Crown-owned foreshore and rights of public access can be sold in the same way by a simple majority of Parliament; Māori customary-owned foreshore cannot. That is one reason that this legislation is bad for Pākehā as well as for Māori.

Other reasons are that it sets a precedent for confiscation of legal rights, and it undermines the treaty, which is our treaty, too, and it makes us feel ashamed, locally and internationally. This bill will perpetuate bad environmental management. Around New Zealand, local authorities are still pouring raw sewage into the sea. They are still failing to protect fragile dunes, shellfish beds, and nesting grounds from four-wheel drives. They are still allowing totally inappropriate coastal subdivisions and commercial developments on historic, iconic headlands like Cape Kidnappers, contrary to their own district plans. We need hapū and iwi to exercise their kaitiakitanga, to be part of the decision making about coastal management, because they do not support the desecration of the coast. Our future as a nation depends on a good working relationship between Government and hapū in local communities. We desperately need cooperative negotiation over the oceans policy, the aquaculture policy, and fisheries regulations, and the marine reserves bill. All of these are on hold until the foreshore and seabed issue is resolved, but resolving it by force and without the agreement of one party will create conflict for generations.

This bill, in conjunction with Don Brash’s speech, has driven a wedge between people, stirring up false fears among Pākehā that the access to the beach is under threat, and destroying the trust of Māori in Pākehā processes because they feel betrayed. And it was all unnecessary. When the Court of Appeal decision came out, the Government could have said: “This isn’t quite what we expected, but we have a treaty partnership here, so let’s sit down, and find our areas of agreement and difference, and negotiate a solution we can all live with.”

The areas of agreement are large. No Māori leader I have spoken to is holding out for exclusive, freehold, saleable title. They agree that there should be public access, except in a few very special places. But they would like it to be freely offered and freely accepted, not snatched as though they were trying to withhold it. They want their kaitiakitanga and their mana recognised. They want a say in management decisions. They want some rights to commercial developments within the law. None of this is unreasonable, and none of it excludes the rest of us. A simple amendment to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act could provide that when customary title is found to exist, the Māori Land Court could issue a collective customary non-saleable title with negotiated public access registered on it. It is still possible.

It is still possible to negotiate a solution that affirms the tino rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga of Māori, and meets the needs of the general public, but only if the Government withdraws the legislation and engages in real negotiation with Māori. The Ngāti Apa decision gave the Government a perfect opportunity to recognise the political dimension embodied in article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi, and to consider seriously how rangatiratanga might be implemented in the 21st century. But instead, the Government chose a patronising, 19th century extinguishment and confiscation that will haunt this country for generations.

It was, and still is, an utterly irresponsible act and it is contrary to the law. The Court of Appeal clearly stated that the Government wrongly assumed that it owned the foreshore and seabed, and that customary rights—rights that precede the Crown’s acquisition of sovereignty—still exist in New Zealand law. But the Government also makes the culturally bound value judgment that private title under European law is sacred, but that tikanga-derived customary title is meaningless and without value. It is that presumption that underlines the contempt this Government shows to Māori, and that underlines the discrimination inherent in this legislation, because it confiscates a form of title that is held only by Māori. It allows title issued according to European law to stand. This bill will redefine customary title and turn it into a privilege granted by the Crown. That is the extinguishment of rights and the confiscation of land that is unconscionable.

The Government argues that this is not a confiscation, because Māori can still go to court to have their rights recognised. It is this the Government waves in public to assure the rest of the country that it is not abrogating the civil rights of New Zealand citizens. But that right is an empty, baseless right. The High Court cannot affirm the full spectrum of customary title rights and responsibilities, nor can it grant any remedies for the loss of any identified rights. It is an utter frace that the court can give a list of exactly what one has had confiscated, so that Māori may then take that to the Government to talk about this little list of lost items.

Then in an additional stab in the guts the Government negotiates with the New Zealand First Party, a party headed by a Māori MP, for the High Court to grant territorial customary title to any group of non-Māori. What for? To build landfills and toilets on wāhi tapu and the coastline, to pump sewage into the seabed? That provision, negotiated by New Zealand First, perverts the international common law doctrine of customary title and its application in Aotearoa. Customary rights cannot in law apply to anyone, other than the peoples with whom sovereignty resided before colonisation. This legislation co-opts and perverts the legal concept to mask the Government’s expropriation of customary rights.

The Court of Appeal found in law that the Government had wrongly assumed that it owned the foreshore and seabed. In response the Government will extinguish legal rights, confiscate land, and put our foreshore and seabed at serious risk of further future alienation and environmental degradation. This Parliament is at a pivotal moment in our nation’s history. The Greens ask the Government to withdraw the legislation and sit down with Māori to have a real dialogue about other viable solutions.

To the Labour and New Zealand First Māori MPs who have not yet turned away from this legislation I say to them that we know where the injustice in this bill will lead this country. How can any of us, willingly and knowingly, subject our people to this theft? We all, Māori and Pākehā in this Parliament, have the choice right now whether we take the path back to our colonial paternalistic history of confiscations, unrest, and injustice, or we put on the brake, withdraw the legislation, and take the path of deliberation, cooperation, peace, and justice.

I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose the foreshore and seabed legislation. ACT is a party that believes in private property rights, the rule of law, the citizen’s right to go to court, and one law for all. This bill violates all of those principles. Today Parliament is doing great and lasting damage to racial harmony by introducing legislation that racially discriminates. The bill discriminates against Māori. It removes the right that the Court of Appeal found that Māori have to seek a declaration from the courts that the seabed and foreshore is Māori land. The bill discriminates against non-Māori by allowing Māori to go to the Māori Land Court to seek a declaration that a particular group of Māori have this new legal concept, ancestral connection with the coastline. Such status will be forever, and according to the Solicitor-General, it will give Māori virtual veto rights over the use of that part of the foreshore by the rest of the community. Non-Māori are discriminated against, because they have no right of standing in the Māori Land Court.

The bill is bad law. Where to start? First, with a provision giving exclusive jurisdiction to the Māori Land Court on what is ancestral connection. There is no right of appeal, and Māori Land Court judges are being invited to create new law. I mean no disrespect to the Māori Land Court when I say that it is not a court. The Māori Land Court is a specialist tribunal for resolving disputes between Māori landowners. Communal land ownership leads to disputes—for example, when there are many owners who can build a property on the land. Those disputes, by definition, are disputes between Māori.

The Māori Land Court was never set up to adjudicate on the ownership of non-Māori land and it was never set up to adjudicate in disputes between citizens at large. Those are matters for the general courts. General land issues have always been adjudicated by the High Court, and there has always been a right of appeal to the High Court from the Māori Land Court. It is simply wrong that this bill gives the Māori Land Court adjudication over land that today is not Māori land, and adjudication over disputes that affect non-Māori.

Let me make it quite clear that in opposing this bill I am upholding the rights of all citizens to go to court but I am not lending my support to claims that Māori, under the treaty, own all the foreshore and seabed around New Zealand. As a lawyer, it is very clear to me that in law, whether it be legislation, the British common law, or Māori customary law, Māori do not own the vast majority of the foreshore and seabed of New Zealand. Legislation passed by this House implies that the foreshore and seabed are Crown land. Both Māori and British common law require continuous occupation and control for common law ownership. If Māori controlled and occupied Takapuna Beach, I think we would have noticed. But it does not follow that it is not possible that there are parts of the foreshore and seabed still owned by Māori. Indeed, I think it is likely that Māori do own some parts of the foreshore and seabed of New Zealand.

I do not see any reason for panic or legislation. If this continuous ownership and occupation has caused no problems for the last 160 years, it is probably going to cause no problems for the next 160 years. The fact that some of the foreshore areas are now owned by people who have riparian rights, causes no problems—except to those who are ideologically opposed to private ownership. It is ACT’s view that the Court of Appeal decision in respect of Marlborough should have been appealed to the Privy Council—if only because courts should not overturn 40-year-old precedents. I do hope that even though the Court of Appeal, I note, was built with no windows, at least one judge did notice the huge civil disruption caused by judges not following well-established precedents.

It is for Parliament, not the courts, to make law. But this Government for ideological reasons decided not to appeal to the Privy Council. Having decided not to appeal, the Government should have simply allowed this matter to proceed through the courts. All that the Crown had to do was to say that it is Government policy that there be public access to the beaches and the seabed. That statement would have been non-controversial. I know of no iwi that has said it would seek to limit public access. Public access will be a problem only if in the future it is somewhere limited. In that eventuality any Government could come to this House legitimately and ask for legislation, and I think the House would give it.

There is only one matter that requires legislative amendment. We all know that when Parliament gave the Māori Land Court the power to freehold Māori land it was never intended that that power would enable that court to declare non-Māori land—such as the foreshore—to be Māori land. Any claim by anyone to the foreshore and the seabed should be brought in a proper court—the High Court.

I hope I have made it clear I do not actually support the National Party’s position. I think there are some inconsistencies. New Zealand First’s position appears to be that it is saving the Auckland Regatta, which will come as a shock to them. The Green Party’s position is somewhat emotional. The reason I am speaking out is that New Zealand has no written constitution. The only protection that the public have to their rights for their private land, for their rights to go to court, is the 120 MPs. It may not be a populist position to stand for that, but that is the ACT party’s position.

I also say to members opposite they would be far better off to let this bill drop. This bill may well mean that the Labour Party loses its support from Māori. That may well help parties in the short term, on this side of the House, but long term I see that leading to political instability. I say to members opposite that racial harmony is something that every member should know is something we should be aiming for. This bill is the worst attack on it in my time in the House. I say that the best thing the Labour Party can do for its own interests, but even more for the country, is to drop this bill.

I seek leave to take a call to speak in this debate.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member is seeking leave. Is there any objection?

Yes. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am keen to hear from the member but it is my understanding that the Labour Party has three slots. She is still a Labour Party member, and I say to the Labour Party that it should allow her to speak, rather than saying to the House that we should change the rules just because the Labour Party is not prepared to hear a dissenting voice.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. The member is entitled to object to the seeking of leave. He did so.

Every now and then in the life of a nation an issue of moment arises that requires people to put aside partisan differences and work together for a solution that befits that nation as a whole. I believe that this issue is one of those. It is a great failure of leadership on behalf of the two major parties that we are in this situation today, and that we were not able to get to a point, as we did with the treaty settlements in the 1990s, where a bipartisan approach was able to be achieved, so that a lot of the division, bitterness, uncertainty, and rancour that has divided this country in recent times could be avoided, and we could make progress on both sides of the argument with a sense of pride and satisfaction in what had been achieved. I spoke with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition separately, and urged them to work together to see whether such an approach could occur on this occasion. I think it is to New Zealand’s shame and disappointment that that was not able to happen, because if it were the case, we would not be in the position we are in right now where—whatever the outcome with regard to this legislation on this vote or any other vote during its time before this House—essentially, we have a country that is polarised and divided, and will take time to heal.

One of the important issues that arises from the whole chain of events that began with the Court of Appeal ruling last year is the need to reassert some certainty about what all our reasonable expectations are. At the time of the Court of Appeal ruling, it was the general view of New Zealanders—Māori, Pākehā, and others—that the foreshore and seabed were the collective property of us all, but that each one of us had an indistinguishable, but inalienable, right to its use and enjoyment. What we wanted to see put in place was a regime that protected that historical understanding. It was in that context that United Future began discussing with the Labour-led Government as early as July or August last year processes by which a settlement could be arrived at that would give that signal of assurance, and allow us to progress as a nation. I believe that the principles announced in the December package were correct, valid, and provided a way forward. There was some further simplification required, and that occurred over the ensuing couple of months.

But one of the things that became important right throughout to us—and in the end became the point at which we parted company with the Government on—was that in order to ensure ultimately that all New Zealanders had the right of access, ownership, and enjoyment they all felt they were historically entitled to, the concept of the foreshore and seabed as public domain had to be acknowledged. Now, that is not a new, republican fad. It draws on English common law going back to the time of the Magna Carta, which was hardly a republican document. What that concept recognises is that as a nation, we have something in common. It also recognises that the Crown acts as the public’s agent. As an entity, the Crown is there to govern on behalf of the people it serves. When the phrase “public domain” was removed from the legislation, that assurance was removed. We ended up with the position where the Crown ceased to be the agent of the people of New Zealand carrying out the will of the people of New Zealand, but became instead a player in its own right, with all the opportunities to dispose of the foreshore and seabed it was acting in trust for on behalf of the people, in any way it saw fit. We said that was not an acceptable position, because it did not give the protection that every single one of us was seeking. It was on the basis of that position that we withdrew our support for this bill.

I want to pay a special tribute to the Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. We have dealt with him in good faith throughout this process, and in return have been met with openness, integrity, honesty, and straightforwardness. I say to Dr Cullen that I was as sad as he was that in the end our ways parted, because I know how much he invested into making the agreement that we were reaching stick. I know how upset he feels—as I do—that the inability of the Labour caucus to manage its own numbers, frankly, led us to that position. He is a man of integrity who has emerged with his honour intact and enhanced as a result of this process, and I pay tribute to him.

The issue that now confronts every single member in this House this afternoon, as this bill goes to a select committee, and as the people in the gallery, on the forecourt, or listening to the debate around the country on their radios have the opportunity to express their views, is this: where to from here? Do we continue to see this issue in narrow, partisan, political terms, where a temporary majority will prevail more for the sake of convenience than good management, or do we take the opportunity—which I thought Dr Brash was hinting at this afternoon—to try to genuinely work towards a solution that will embrace a large number of members of this House? Unless we do that, whatever solution we arrive at is a tainted one, passed by a narrow majority. In a way, it is the same argument that we have about the Supreme Court: that it lacks a moral mandate. The community is divided, and that automatically raises the suspicion that what ought to be a mark of some permanence and some stability could, potentially, be overturned by any future Government on a whim at any particular time.

The previous speaker made reference to 160 years of law, and made the argument that if the ownership of the seabed and foreshore has not become an issue in the last 160 years, what guarantee is there that it will become an issue in the next 160 years? I have some sympathy with that point of view. I do not have perhaps the previous speaker’s confidence that the issue would not arise, but what I do know is that unless this Parliament speaks unequivocally and tries to come together in a sense of unity to create a purpose, then there is every prospect that the historical understandings of the last 160 years will be challenged. With that, there is every prospect of the fear being realised that all of us have, whatever side of the argument we are on, about this country beginning to tear itself apart.

Today is a historic day, not just for those of us privileged to sit in this Chamber and take part in this debate but for our country. It is about our nationhood, and it is about our future. Fundamentally, there is no prospect of this country going forward in the united, cohesive way that we all like to talk about, if we are unable to set petty differences aside and come to a constructive solution on major legislation like this. My challenge to the House, as this bill goes to a select committee and the debate proper begins, is that we should all focus on ways in which we can achieve a positive outcome, and start to leave behind the factors that have divided and embittered us for far too long. Otherwise, we will not have a nation to be proud of.

I seek leave to take a call in this debate.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.

Tū ana au ki te kei o te waka. E kīa nei te kōrero: Mōkau ki runga, Tāmaki ki raro, ko Mangatoatoa kei waenganui. Ko Pare Hauraki, ko Pare Waikato te kaokao roa o Pātetere. Ka huri te titiro ki te rāwhiti, ko Tīkapa Moana Te Pae o Hauraki ki Moehau. Ka rere atu au ki ngā tai mihia o te Waitematā, ki te mānukanuka o Hoturoa. Tiro atu au ki te pūaha o te awa Tūpuna, he piko, he taniwha, Waikato taniwharau. Ka rongo te whatitiri. Tainui Āwhiro e ngunguru ana i te ao, i te pō. Ka tae atu rā ki te tumu o te waka ki Kāwhia tangata, ki Aotea whenua, Whaingaroa te moana. Ka tau hoki te ūnga o te waka ki Mōkau. Kāti au i konei. Pai mārire!

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[I stand on the stern of the canoe. The proverb says this: Mōkau at the top, Tāmaki below, and Maungatoatoa in the middle. It is Pare Hauraki and Pare Waikato the long ribs of Pātetere. I turn and look to the east. Behold, it is the sea of Tīkapa and Hauraki on the horizon at Moehau. I wing my way to the welcoming tides of the Waitematā, to the anxiety of Hoturoa. I look at the mouth of the ancestral river and behold, a bend, a chief. It is Waikato of a hundred chiefs. Hark, the lightning hears. It is Tainui Āwhiro rumbling in the daylight and in the night. At last I arrive at the mooring stump of the canoe where the Kāwhia people reside, where the land of Aotea and the sea of Whaingaroa are. The canoe also landed at Mōkau. I end here. Good tidings!]

I rise to speak to the Foreshore and Seabed Bill with an air of trepidation, and with high expectation that this Parliament will not act in a way reminiscent of its colonial days. This is by no means an easy issue, and quick-fix solutions will haunt current and future Governments. That is not a threat; it is the reality of treating a complex issue in a very simplistic way. The answer will take time to arrive at. Māori understand that this is the only time they will have the opportunity to influence a law that will forever extinguish and transform what they have long understood their ancestral rights to be. They do not want the end result of this law to transform those rights into something that they cannot recognise any more. It is as simple as that.

Twenty-three thousand New Zealanders, many of whom were Māori, appeared before the steps of this Parliament yesterday in opposition to the intent of this bill. Clearly, there is a grave sense of unfairness and injustice at the speed with which such decisions are being taken. The hīkoi was an expression that demanded the attention of all politicians in this House. Politicians have argued on the fringes of this debate, which has only polarised New Zealand. This bill allows a simple Act of Parliament to alienate the foreshore and seabed, so let us do some straight talking. Nobody has really wanted to understand the hearts and minds of Māori, who simply will not tolerate the watering-down of their ancestral rights, their customary property rights, and what they mean. The hīkoi walked right through the middle of this debate—peacefully and without incident, we understand. It showed this Parliament that the principles Māori assert are understood by all New Zealanders: principles of fairness, due process, justice, and equality, to name a few. Those same New Zealanders represent a vibrant canvas of the future of this country, and will not be limited by small-minded views that often shape New Zealand law as it applies to Māori. They have put a face to their opposition to this bill, and a proposition that there can be another way forward. We should listen to them. Māori are looking for sustainability—sustainable solutions, and positive ways forward that contribute to our nation’s identity, and get on with it.

The right to govern is a privilege, and there is nothing more binding than the willing consent of those who choose to be governed. Each person on the hīkoi represented generations past and present. Māori do not consent to the extinguishment of their customary property rights, which is what this bill does. The hīkoi said clearly that the solutions could be found in the Treaty of Waitangi, and that the Government must commit to a relationship and solution based on those principles, and commence a dialogue with Māori. That solution could be the foundation of a very strong sense of nationhood, and in part was affirmed by the Waitangi Tribunal. The common law doctrine of aboriginal, or native, title is a set of rules that preserve the pre-existing rights that indigenous people have to their lands, according to their tikanga. The treaty merely affirms that. Whether Māori signed the Declaration of Independence or the Treaty of Waitangi, it is evident from their histories that they asserted the strongest concept of authority over their tribal domain. This bill waters down the effect of that authority to mere use rights, which, again, transforms what Māori understand their rights to have always been. Simply being induced into participating in the existing Resource Management Act processes, or being consulted with, just will not do.

One would have thought that the right to fully explore one’s customary property rights, and to have them protected, is reasonable. So why are Māori being prevented from doing so? What is the real reason for this bill? Why is it that only the rights of Māori are being affected? Many questions remain, and the answers are not clear. One thing is sure: if the Foreshore and Seabed Bill is a glimpse of how Māori customary property rights are to be treated by the Government, then we will see the tide of Māori opinion turn, as sure as night becomes day. Members in the Māori electorate seats have a clear mandate to represent the views of our constituents on the hard issues, and this is one of those times. The Tainui waka and the electorate object to the first reading of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. The mandate of that opinion is expressed now because the bill is fundamentally flawed. The bill does not reflect what Māori believe our pre-existing customary property rights to be, according to our tikanga. The Treaty of Waitangi is not recognised in any way, and I suspect any tinkering with the bill by the select committee will be just that.

We are in a time of peace, and there are real opportunities to get things right. But the Government must be committed to genuinely ensuring that there is agreement from Māori—our consent, our willing consent. The Government is making a decision for Māori because it is the best deal on the table. Heck, it is the only deal on the table, and Māori say no to it. Surely Crown ownership remains subject to a customary property right until Māori agree to any sort of alienation or extinguishment of that right. These are challenging times, and young Māori New Zealanders have an expectation that their potential will not be limited by perception or legislation. The faces on the old people show us what determination is all about, and what vision and direction can achieve.

Let us commit to get it right. This bill should not continue. For that reason, and to ensure that the Government is accountable, I will not resign. The Government will need to work hard to retain the confidence of my electorate and to strengthen its relationship with the Tainui waka. Never again should the vote of Tainui be taken for granted. Waikato, Hauraki, Maniapoto, and Raukawa say no to this bill. It is not about voting for National or ACT; it is about preserving our customary property rights in the domain of Tangaroa. Anything less is an extinguishment of those rights. This and future Governments will be revisiting this matter should the bill continue.

Nō reira, he hokinga mahara, e kore tēnei oranga e huri ki tua o āku mokopuna. Tēnei e tū nei, e haria ana ō koutou wawata ā koro, ā kui mā, ki te whakahē i tēnei pire. Ka huri.

[So therefore, bear in mind that this benefit will not go beyond my grandchildren. I stand here carrying the aspirations of your grandfathers and grandmothers to oppose this bill. I turn.]

I seek leave of the House to allow Tariana Turia, at the conclusion of this time-limited debate on the first reading, to have the right of a 10-minute speech. Before the motion is put, I would be grateful to ask colleagues across the other side of the House to acknowledge that this is a great Parliament, to acknowledge that this is one of the few places that our people have a right to express their views, to acknowledge that Tariana Turia has made a significant move in recent times on the basis of this bill, and under our culture it is important—kai a te rangatira—that she has a say. I am just asking colleagues—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member has put the point—

Speaking to the point of order—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: It is not a point of order.

The issue is very simple. The Labour Party just has to give up one of its speaking slots. We have had one Labour Party member speaking in opposition, and there is nothing to stop another Labour Party member doing the same—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Please be seated. If the member persists, he will leave. Leave is sought, is there any objection? There is objection.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was on the end of the list for the Labour Party members, and I would be more than happy to stand down from that.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That resolves that matter. The list will be adjusted accordingly so that Mrs Turia will speak in the 12th slot.

Is it not extraordinary that we can have perhaps the most important legislation to come before this Parliament and we hear nothing from the Prime Minister? New Zealanders have come to this Parliament from all across the country to hear the views of their politicians, and we hear nothing from the Prime Minister.

This is extremely divisive legislation. It is fascinating that we can have the National Party opposed to it, the ACT party opposed to it, New Zealand First supporting it, but showing reservations, United Future supporting it, but showing reservations—

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: We’re opposing it.

—my apologies, United Future opposing it, the soon-to-be-independent member, Tariana Turia, opposing it, and Nanaia Mahuta opposing it. All of us have very different reasons for doing so. That must surely tell everyone here that it is very poor legislation and should not go any further. But it will progress today, because John Tamihere and his cohorts—the other Māori MPs in the Labour Party—will support it. They could have stood up in their caucus and said: “We have listened to the people. We have listened not only to our own people, but to all those New Zealanders out there who have concerns, and we’re not prepared to vote for it.” But they have said: “No, we’re scared of Helen Clark, so we will do as we are told.” That will be the electoral end of them and their Labour Party.

Why should someone like me vote for this bill? I feel very, very strongly about this bill for the simple reason that people like me, and like most in this Parliament, are effectively being told, with the passing of this legislation, that no matter how long we live in this country, no matter how many generations back us, we can never feel the same way about the whenua as a Māori. I want to tell this House, and anyone who cares to listen, that I fundamentally reject that concept.

My family has held a property in Pelorus Sound since the 1870s. Today my 98-year-old grandfather, his 10 children, his 42 grandchildren, and his 57 great grandchildren all have an interest in that place. It is, in every way and in every sense, a standing-place for our family. Yet we are told that we cannot have the same interests, the same love, or the same connection with the coastal strip along the front of that property as Māori can. Even though we know, and history reports, that Māori who lived in the area were cleaned out by Te Rauparaha in the 1830s, those remnants—never seen in my lifetime—can come back and claim a greater connection to that part of the coast than my family and I.

💬 Dail Jones: But they won’t get it.

Well, it is not possible to dispossess New Zealanders of the birthright they have by virtue of being here and expect that this legislation will not be seen as totally divisive and setting up a separatist regime in this country. Anyone who says: “Well, there’s never been a problem with this stuff.”, and the Winston Peters’ line: “This bill’s perfectly fine; it won’t cause any problems.”, should have a look at Delaware Bay, not far from my family’s place in Pelorus Sound. On the day this bill was introduced to the House, the gates were put up by Ngāti Tama, a price was put on access, and the local council simply said it would do nothing because the seabed and foreshore legislation would make that a legitimate activity. That is a fact. That is the sort of division in our society that Helen Clark has sanctioned and been supported in by Parekura Horomia and his fellow Māori MPs. So people should not expect someone like me to support legislation like this.

There are concepts for the management of the foreshore and seabed of this country that could be unique to this country. I personally think there is enormous opportunity to develop management around our coastlines along the lines of taiapure. It is not an exclusively Māori concept, but Māori—and, indeed, New Zealand—could look to the interpretation of that as a solution. What is wrong with taking some time over that?

Could I further ask all those who want to say that there are treaty rights involved here what the treaty guaranteed to non-Māori on the day it was signed? It guaranteed equal citizenship in this country, and I am tired of being told that I am part of a group that somehow has a greater obligation to Māori than Māori themselves have as part of the community.

Parekura Horomia talked today about styles and understandings of ownership. He told us it is not about fee simple; it is about all of those other ethereal things. If those things are to be held and preserved in this country, surely they are to be so by virtue of the Treaty of Waitangi. If that is the case—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

—I ask Mr Horomia why my rights under that treaty are being so kicked about by that member. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

I am not prepared to have my speech interrupted by that man.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If the member does not sit down, his speech will be terminated immediately. I called a point of order. Now, the Minister must not interject in the second person, because he is bringing me into the debate. He has been doing that constantly, and he will stop.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to make it clear that I consider that interruption to my speech totally unacceptable. I was unaffected by the Minister’s barrage, but I am the only speaker today to have had my speech interrupted by the Chair, and I resent that deeply.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Let me say that I was—[Interruption] The member is very close indeed to trying my patience; I was trying to protect him.

Oh!

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I was, because the Minister was interjecting, and the interjection was wrong. I was trying to protect the member. However, I have taken note of what he said.

I will again ask the questions for people to think about. Why cannot a non-Māori claim protection under the guise of the Treaty of Waitangi, and why do we have Māori members standing up in the House and talking about the Government as though it was something separate from Māori? Why do we have Māori constantly wanting to talk about the obligations of Government to them, as though they were members of some third-party group who had no responsibility themselves?

I want to say to those Māori members on the Government benches that if they put the tick today in favour of this legislation, then the legacy left behind by their term in this Parliament will be the start of deep, deep racial division in this country. There is no question about it. The National Party knows that in less than 18 months’ time we will need to pick up the mess left behind by the outgoing Labour Government. We are prepared to do that, but we are not prepared to buy into some of the myths and nonsense being put before the House today by Māori members who, frankly, have forgotten whom they represent.

E ngā mana, e ngā reo, tēnā koutou katoa. E ngā tangata whenua o Aotearoa kua maranga ake i te karanga o te takutai moana, maranga mai, maranga mai.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[To the authorities and the languages, greetings to you all. To the people of the land of New Zealand who have risen to the call of the coastal shores, rise up, rise up.]

First of all I want to thank the Hon Mita Ririnui for giving over his time to me to speak in this debate. Tēnā koe, Mita. I will not go over all the other comments that have been made by others in this House today, given that I have only 5 minutes to speak. But I want to say that it is a fundamental principle of democracy that citizens have rights against the Crown. They are property rights, and we have the right to defend those rights in the courts of this land. This legislation overturns the rule of law and it extinguishes the property rights of our people.

I want to commend those who were involved in the march yesterday on their discipline, solidarity, and courage in standing up for what we believe in. I have said on many occasions that this issue is the most significant issue facing our nation, and, indeed, yesterday was a day in our history that will be etched in our memories for years to come.

It could well have been different. I believe that a solution that would have pleased all New Zealanders could have been simple. All it would have taken to protect access to the foreshore and seabed was for the Government to amend the Resource Management Act. To ensure the land was inalienable and could never be sold, we could have changed Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. Instead, our relationship has been tested to its most extreme point by a foreshore and seabed package written in the interests of middle New Zealand. Our response to this insult has been to rise up, to stand up for our rights. We remain confident in our knowledge that tangata whenua rights are recognised in common law. Te Tiriti o Waitangi confirmed those rights, the Maori Land Act enshrines those rights in legislation, and the Court of Appeal has upheld those rights.

The bill impacts only on Māori. Our people have asked the Government to explain why no action has been planned against private landowners or foreign investors who own areas of the foreshore. Why are those privileged groups not targeted in this policy? Is it that they are specially privileged and can escape the scrutiny of the policy makers? The legislation is infused with racist overtones in that it is specifically targeted at ensuring Māori are prevented from claiming their inherent rights to the foreshore.

What has been taken away is not just tupuna rights, which Māori may have been able to establish. What is also under compromise is the right to justice in the hands of the court. We will not sit down and accept a compromise of basic rights, a denial of our tikanga, a belittling of our status as indigenous peoples. What we have heard over the months of discussion on this bill, and resoundingly through yesterday’s hīkoi, is the powerful call to stand up and be counted. We are mana whenua. Our authority comes from our relationship and our access to our lands and the rights of guardianship and protection. We will not be relegated to second-class citizens in our own land. We are tangata whenua, and we are proud of it. It is that pride and determination that will drive us in the next hīkoi to the ballot box. We can determine our own future, and we will.

I have been inspired by the commitment and support shared across this nation for us to take control of our own political destiny. The hīkoi has represented a great coming together of our peoples, united in their strength of commitment to ensure that the last part of customary land is not removed from our hands. We owe this to our mokopuna. We owe them a chance to address their potential secure in the knowledge of who they are. Ultimately, it is because of our mokopuna that I have decided unequivocally to vote against the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. I do not want to be recorded in history as part of a Government that attacked the very nature of customary rights—the rights we have held according to our tikanga, for our children and our grandchildren. Kia ora.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you tell the House what the arrangements are? Mr Tamihere has clearly got a split speech with Mrs Turia. Normally, some indication is given to the House that a speech is to be split. Can I ask what the arrangement will be over the third speech that the National Party would ordinarily get, given that this is the 95th bill being dealt with by this Parliament, and therefore, according to the one-in-three cycle, the slot is appropriately ours?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will come to that at the end of this speech.

Ko Hikurangi tōku maunga e kore rā e nekeneke. Ko Waiapū taku awa e rere rā. Ko Porourangi te tangata. Ko Te Aitanga-ā-Mate me Te Whānau-ā-Rua ngā hapū. Ko Harataunga me Mataora ngā whenua. Kō Ngāti Porou Whānui-ki-Hauraki te iwi. Tihei mauri ora!

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Hikurangi, which never moves, is my mountain. Waiapū flowing there is my river. Porourangi is the man. Te Aitanga-ā-Mate and Te Whānau-ā-Rua are the subtribes. Harataunga and Mataora are the lands. Ngāti Porou at-large-at-Hauraki is the tribe. Behold the breath of life!]

The Ngāti Porou people are not just centred on the coastline of the Tairāwhiti; they are bound and anchored, in their very essence, into the foreshore and seabed. My colleague and my whanaunga, the Minister of Māori Affairs, would not vote for this legislation if it discriminated or prejudiced our abilities to move forward in a protection regime for the foreshore and seabed. From the time that this bill hits the select committee, we have 6 months to work through our communities as to whether there are unintended consequences, perverse results, or a range of other amendments that might be able to be made that ensure the upholding of the sanctity that the Court of Appeal has ruled.

Due process has been upheld, with respect. Māori can go to the Māori Land Court and explore the extent of their customary right in that court. If Māori are not happy with that, they can also go to the High Court, under jurisprudence known as aboriginal title. One thing is stopped in both those jurisdictions, and one thing only, and that is the provision of exclusive freehold title. That is a Pākehā, a Westminster, tikanga. The alienation of our rights is predicated by this House ensuring that process. Māori members on this side of the House want a protection regime—one that is handed down to us, tuku-ed from our ancestors. We do not want a regime that will be alienated again—where it is moni, not mana, that counts. We will vote for this legislation today. We will see what our people say, in the cool calmness of their submissions, as the select committee goes up and down this country. We will listen to our people, but we are part of a Government. We are no longer an Opposition.

I say to some of our leadership outside this House that we are now coming to the time when we must release the latent potential of our young people, rather than always telling them what is wrong with this world, why it is bad, why they will fail, and who will make them fail. The debate has to move on. We on this side of the House will reserve our judgment for the select committee. We will see how that process works. Coming from Ngāti Porou, that is our right.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have an intractable dilemma, and I am going to share it with the House. The 11th call goes either to National or to New Zealand First. At the Business Committee meeting on Tuesday, 10 September 2002 it was agreed that the remaining Opposition call would, generally, be given two out of three times to National, and one out of three times to New Zealand First. My dilemma is this. The last six times that there were 12 speakers in the debate, the National Party got the 11th call. However, if we go back to the 95 times we have had a first reading debate—and of course a lot of the time all the calls are not used—we realise, if we divide by three, that that is not one-third. I can see a very good reason for both people being granted the call. In this intractable dilemma—and it has to be sorted out subsequently by the Business Committee—I want to offer the following solution: that 5 minutes be given to New Zealand First and 5 minutes be given to National. That gives both parties a share of the speech. I would take the leave of the House that that be the case.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have a suggestion that I think may help you and the House. The respected Māori member Mita Ririnui graciously gave up his speaking slot in deference to his colleague Tariana Turia, who had previously been denied a slot. I suggest that we hear from Mita Ririnui also—he would have prepared a speech; this is an important debate—and that both the National and New Zealand First members, in terms of the third slot, be given a full speech. That meets your dilemma, as well as recognising the gracious offer that Mita Ririnui made to the House.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for that suggestion, but what I am saying is that if there were 5-minute speeches given to Mr Ririnui—

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Mr Speaker, you have not understood the proposal that has been put to you. No doubt the National member and the New Zealand First member have prepared 10-minute speeches, and I am sure the Labour member has, too. We are proposing that there be three speeches, all of 10 minutes—one for the Labour Party, one for the National Party, and one for New Zealand First. In fact, I ask for leave for that.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Mr Ririnui was asking for only 5 minutes anyway. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is. I will therefore put my proposal that I offer 5 minutes to New Zealand First and 5 minutes to National. Does anyone object? No.

I raise a point order, Mr Speaker. I am quite happy for Mr Smith to get the first 5 minutes, and I will take the next 5 minutes.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Let me just say that this is a 10-minute call in total. It would go to one or other member. We are proposing that those members have 5 minutes each. Does anyone object to that? No. There is a 5-minute call, to the Hon Nick Smith.

The mess that surrounds this bill marks the end for this Government. This bill fails Māori; it fails all of the people of New Zealand. It is one of those bills so riddled with compromise that it serves the interests of no one.

What has surprised me in this debate is that in talking about the foreshore and seabed of New Zealand—and I remind the House that we are talking about 18,000 kilometres of coastline and 26 million hectares of foreshore and seabed—I have heard too little from the Government about how this bill will improve the management of that foreshore and seabed for all New Zealanders.

We are in this waka together, whether it is the economic use of our foreshore and seabed, or the important protection of the environmental and recreational values of our foreshore. I want this House to honestly ask whether this bill will improve things. I say it will not. I say this bill is more driven by politics than providing a regime that will best serve the foreshore and seabed interests of all New Zealanders.

In the foreshore and seabed we already have a plethora of Government agencies that have responsibilities. We have the Ministry of Fisheries, the Department of Conservation, regional councils, local councils, and also the Ministry of Economic Development. With the confusing array of ancestral connections, new orders for customary rights, on top of those that already exist in our fisheries laws, I believe that we will end up with nothing less than an absolute muddle of different instruments that will serve nobody’s interests. Far from securing the rights of those who recreate and use our foreshore and seabed, this bill does the opposite.

Those new provisions for ancestral connection are a step backwards. I ask the members opposite who rejected the concepts of ancestral landscapes in the resource management law because they would create too much confusion, why, suddenly, ancestral connections are somehow going to do the job?

National does not accept that Māori own the foreshore or seabed, and that is not what the Court of Appeal said. Nor has it ever been the intention of this Parliament to have the Māori Land Court issue title for areas of foreshore and seabed. It is actually quite simple—land laws do not work at sea. It will be as much Māori rights with quota, and Māori rights to customary fishing, that will be countered across if we go down the road of having individual fee simple title in respect of that foreshore and seabed.

But what is awful about this bill is the way it will compromise sensible management of that foreshore. Under this bill, we will have areas of ancestral connection, customary rights orders, customary fishing rights, quota-holder rights, maritime transport rights, and resource management regional plans. It is nothing less than a bureaucratic mess, and it will adversely affect the management of those areas. One needs to start this debate from a principled point of view of how to effectively manage those areas of foreshore and seabed, and this bill does anything but achieve that.

I also want to make the point that the Prime Minister has failed the test of leadership. She failed to participate in this debate, failed to speak to the Māori people who were on the forecourt yesterday, and failed to have a clear policy on this issue over 9 months. Now we are to understand from John Tamihere that the ball game is still open, and we do not know what the final Government policy is. That confusion and uncertainty is the cause of this problem, and the Government need look no further than the mirror for this mess that will bring it down.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): New Zealand First would prefer to have this matter dealt with by the Privy Council, and hopes that the current appellant to the Privy Council will continue with that appeal. We will have to wait and see what happens there. Unfortunately, future appeals to the Privy Council have been ended as a result of support by the Greens for the Government’s legislation.

I will do something unusual in this debate and quote from what the Court of Appeal said. It said: “Māori customary land is defined by the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, and is land that is held by Māori in accordance with tikanga Māori. It refers to lands owned by natives under their customs or usages. Such property was not the creation of the Treaty of Waitangi, or a statute, although it was confirmed by both.” What the Court of Appeal is saying is that what we are looking at today is a decision based on English common law. It is not related to the Treaty of Waitangi.

The court also said, in paragraph 89, as I have indicated, that what is at stake “is a matter the Māori Land Court would have to consider as a question of custom and usage.” There is nothing there about getting fee simple titles, but custom and usage in accordance with tikanga Māori and, of course, ahi kā. That is what this legislation is about, is it not—proving that one can go back to 1840 and establish one’s ahi kā?

That is what the Court of Appeal said, and that is what this legislation does. That is what New Zealand First wanted, when on 25 June 2003, in a speech by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, it said: “New Zealand First will support any move to ensure the Crown has legal title to the foreshore and seabed.” That has been done; that is our policy. “We also seek assurances that legal title extends to the other parts of the environment where ownership could be disputed.”

Mr Peters went on to say: “Māori traditional rights of use must be protected, but those rights cannot be extended to property ownership on the basis of race.” Now there is no question of property ownership in this bill, but Māori traditional rights of use are protected in keeping with the Court of Appeal decision. That is what New Zealand First wants to achieve. When the Labour Party came to us with legislation, which was virtually what New Zealand First said was the basis of the Court of Appeal decision, what could one do? One had to support it.

Now ahi kā is a long-established exercise—the burning of the fires of occupation. Captain Cook saw it at Mercury Bay in 1769. It is well established. The example given by Mr Brownlee shows that he does not understand ahi kā, which requires continuous fires of occupation. The example he gave was not continuous—that is the difference. It will not be easy to do this, and to some extent that is why there is a bit of concern from the Māori community.

There is no question about that, ever, in my time in this Parliament—and I look back to 1977 when we had the Territorial Sea, Contiguous Zone, and Exclusive Economic Zone Bill. We passed that legislation to say that the seabed was vested in the Crown. In that House we had Matiu Rata, Koro Wētere, Ben Couch, Rex Austin, Whetū Tirikātene-Sullivan, and Brownie Rēweti. None of those members objected to the Crown owning the seabed through that legislation. Similarly, in respect of foreshore and seabed legislation, I know of no one who has ever objected to the Crown owning the foreshore and seabed. So it has been well established for a long time in this Parliament that the Crown has owned the foreshore and the seabed.

New Zealand First has looked at this bill. It guarantees the public the right to be in or upon the public foreshore and seabed, the right to enter, remain in, and leave the public foreshore and seabed, and to enjoy the public foreshore and seabed. No ancestral order or a customary rights order made under part 3, subpart 2, or under part 5 of the Act can limit or prevent those rights from taking place. So if anyone has an ancestral connection order, or a customary rights order, that still does not permit them to exclude any New Zealander from going on the public foreshore and seabed. When my wife goes for a walk on Takapuna beach, she will retain that right.

I call Mahara Okeroa. This is also a split speech.

Kia ora Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa i haere mai nei ki te rongo au. Ko te whānuitia o ngā kōrero, ko au he uri nō Te Raukura. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātau katoa.

[Thank you Mr Speaker. Greetings to all who came here to listen to me. The sum total about me is that I am a descendant of Te Raukura. So, greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings indeed to us all.]

I listened with some amazement to an interpretation of the treaty by the Opposition’s shadow Minister of Māori Affairs. I was simply appalled by the level of misunderstanding and by that analysis.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Don’t apologise!

I am not—I am just appalled. That member should apologise. He gave an analysis of the treaty that shows very clearly that he knows nothing about it. He is the shadow Minister of Māori Affairs.

Let me now divert a wee bit, to the previous mention of Delaware Bay. In fact, that bay is known as Whakapuaki. On that bay—and I know it—the people from Ngāti Tama have title. They have title that meets the test. That shutting of the gate was about tiakitanga and respect, and looking after the access according to the tikanga that has been proposed in this bill. People must respect tikanga Māori. That is what the issue is about with regard to this bill. Then we have another Opposition member, a former Minister of Conservation, who, despite the ownership of that bay, despite the certificate of ownership, and despite the fact that it has been awarded by the Māori Land Court, took a case about the validity of that title held by Māori. That is what this bill is about. It is about, as the Hon John Tamihere said, the protection of our rights.

The Opposition says that Māori are getting too much. They say that Māori are getting privileges over and above those of other New Zealanders. In any situation, we have to meet the test, and the test and the bar are high. That is always how it has been when Māori have contested their cases, be they land claims or whatever, in a court of law. There is a poison here, the poison that was referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. Let us be very, very clear about where that poison is. It does not rest with us. Mita Ririnui was magnanimous in giving his 5 minutes to Tariana Turia, and that is right—that is tikanga. That is the way it should be in this House, even though Tariana Turia is expressing a real, heartfelt view, ka tika mai. I, in view and perception, am looking at this bill as a way forward, not backward—never backward. What National is proposing is to take our people back in history to where we were sitting very uncomfortably, and that is why the people are here at Parliament today.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: That’s why they don’t want you to vote for it.

I wish that member of the Opposition would pay me more respect, because he objected mightily when he was interrupted. Now he is not giving the same freedom of speech to another member in this House.

I need to say this: certain people, whom I have great respect for, have asked me to cross the floor of the House. That is a total anathema to me. As the member for Te Tai Tonga, I will not take the mana of the Te Tai Tonga electorate and its diversity of people, and give it to National, because crossing the floor is about voting for the Opposition. That is the tikanga in this House. On that basis, there is no way that I, as a Labour Party member, would ever even consider doing that.

E Te Rōpū Kaihīkoi, ā, kei te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Ā, i runga i te huarahi, ā, hoki atu koutou ki ō koutou wā kāinga mā. Te Runga Rawa koutou e manaaki. Ngā kaumātua, ngā kuikuia, ā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā anō hoki tātou katoa.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[To the hīkoi gathering, I acknowledge you all. May the Almighty above look after you on the road as you return to your homes. Greetings to the elderly, both men and women. Greetings, greetings, and greetings indeed to us all as well. ]

I am glad that the whānau and hapū have come here to share the contributions of the parties here this afternoon, in terms of this bill. I think they would have learnt a lot. They have seen the differences of opinion between, and the different contributions that have been made by, different people in terms of the process. Furthermore, they have seen the National spokesperson on Māori affairs, the shadow Minister in the National Party, say that National does not support this bill because it gives too much to Māori. That is the future for Māoridom. “There is your future”, says the shadow National Minister—if at some time, somewhere, the National Party ever becomes the Government in this country. Let us be clear that that is an example of what we will get if National ever becomes the Government. That member of Parliament refuses to recognise Māori customary rights. I say to our people that I hope that tidal wave will never reach the shores of New Zealand. The audacity of some people to suggest that I should cross the floor and sit with that member! Pigs might fly! Me rere te poaka! Ā, ngā hunga e mea ana me whakawhiti atu au ki te noho ki tērā taha: e moemoe ana, pōkarekare ana!

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[And as for those of you who are saying that I should cross to the other side and sit there: dream on, stir on!]

I refer to current legislation that confirms Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed—that is, the area that is covered by the sea, and the areas that are uncovered by the sea, according to the rise and fall of the tide. No. 1 was the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zone Act of 1965. No provision was made in that Act for Māori customary rights. The second piece of legislation was the Territorial Sea, Contiguous Zone, and Exclusive Economic Zone Act of 1977. Once again, it is silent. Nothing in that Act refers to Māori customary rights. The third piece of legislation was on the foreshore and seabed. Members should listen to this one. We had the Foreshore and Seabed Endowment Revesting Act of 1991. Again, that Act does not mention one word about Māori customary rights. I want to ask the House if it knows who passed those three pieces of legislation. It was National. It passed the three pieces of legislation that confirm Crown ownership but have no reference to Māori customary rights.

Things will change. The winds of change will come about. It is no wonder that the National Party does not support this bill. Then the ACT party says that it does not support the bill, but that it supports property rights. I was here in the House when ACT asked all its farmer mates in Taranaki to come down to Parliament with their tractors to oppose the Māori reserve legislation. They came here. The property rights we were talking about were Māori rights, but ACT opposed that legislation. Why? Because it gave Māori the rights that they should have duly had in terms of the Māori reserve lands. There is the Clayton’s approach; there is the forked tongue. We heard Dr Brash oppose this bill. I ask our people why he opposes this bill. It is because it gives Māori the mana to their takutai moana.

I tell our people that when they go to the court, then they will be successful. Tihei mauri ora!

I move, That the Foreshore and Seabed Bill be referred to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee for consideration and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during questions for oral answer, during any evening in a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).