te Heuheu Georgina: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17071] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 Part 3 deals with the jurisdiction of the Maori Land Court in relation to customary rights. It is part of the problem that I referred to in an earlier contribution. We could say that this is very simple legislation. It upholds the mana of Maori—which is the way Mr Winston Peters described it—and it also gives all New Zealanders unimpeded access to the foreshore and seabed. That is fine. It would be great if that was how the bill stood. But we see the reality once we get into the detail of the legislation.  
We dealt with the High Court earlier and now we are discussing the Maori Land Court. When I look at some of the detail I have to ask—and perhaps Dr Cullen might answer this—how we can reconcile the issue extant in clause 6 which confirms people’s rights to come and go on the foreshore and seabed with the fact that provision has been made in Part 3 for Maori to prove their customary use and customary rights. It looks good on paper—although having said that I do not think that is a correct assertion anyway; it still looks complex and mangled on paper. But I ask Dr Cullen how we really reconcile those two overriding principles.  
One or two people have already rung me this afternoon to comment on the provision that John Tamihere has just commented on. It looks as if Maori could get customary rights orders but when we look at the limitations in the provision we see that it is very questionable whether they would get them. When we consider the overriding principle of the bill which is to give confirmation to New Zealanders that through the Crown they own the foreshore and seabed and have access to it then I think it becomes very difficult to see how this will all work out on the ground. I just wonder whether the Government has thought clearly about that. We have already heard this afternoon about Maori up north and no doubt it will happen in other places. They will say: “We have customary rights here. We might not have been to the court to get them proven yet but we have them.” So maybe we will see some blocking of that access as time goes on.  
I still have a real problem with how we reconcile the overriding principle set out in new clause 2A clause 6 new clause12 and some of the other clauses in Part 2 with provisions that look as though they will freely recognise Maori customary rights yet when we look at the limitations and the detail of them we see that that will not be so. If the Hon Dover Samuels takes another call which I hope he does I want to ask him—as I asked before—about Matauri Bay. It is part of his whenua and is where no doubt a lot of customary activity in accordance with the way he sees it was carried on. Will access by the public be unimpeded in that area? I think that the provisions in Part 3 would apply specifically to that area. It does make me wonder whether there would be a proper reconciliation so that when other New Zealanders go up to Matauri Bay they will go into that lovely settlement and feel absolutely confident they can use the foreshore and seabed that adjoin the land that I think the honourable member owns.  
I say to Dr Cullen that that is my difficulty. I think that the Minister in the chair should give some reassurance that the orders the Maori Land Court will be able to grant will not impede access for other New Zealanders.