Tamihere John: Urgent Debates — Government Proposals for Seabed and Foreshore 
Tamihere John: Urgent Debates — Government Proposals for Seabed and Foreshore 
[Volume:611;Page:8057] 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
:  
E te Kaihautu e te whakaruruhau ki a matau Ross tena ra koe. E tu ake au ki te mihi nunui ki a koe e te rangatira Russell no reira i tua o te arai kua wheturangitia tenei i mihi atu mo te tamaiti korua. A moe mai moe mai i te moenga roa te uri a Russell. No reira aroha ki a koutou. Mo te whanau pani kia kaha kia toa kia manawa nui. 
[ 
To you Mr Speaker Ross Robertson the one who shelters us greetings indeed to you. I rise to extend respectful condolences to you Russell in the tragic loss of your twin granddaughters. To the descendants of Russell sleep and slumber there. Sleep the long sleep. Therefore much sorrow to you all. To the grieving family be strong be brave and stout of heart 
.] 
Before I commence my contribution to the debate it is very important that we acknowledge those who have gone before us. Today I make a special acknowledgement of one of our dear colleagues who is at home in Napier today. I acknowledge Mr Fairbrother’s loss and that of his family. We wish them all the love and strength we can over the next wee while as he and his family handle their difficulties. 
In debates like this we look around this hallowed Chamber and see carved into its walls the names of many battles in which many of our ancestors fell as underwriters of this nation’s greatest attributes. We are proud of them and of the loss they bequeathed to us but more importantly we must always remember the chapter in the nationhood story for which they paid the ultimate sacrifice. I entreat members to read a pamphlet written by Sir Apirana Ngata a member of this House in 1943. It is called  
The Price of Citizenship  
and it 
was written off the back of the number of times he had to tell his nieces that his nephews would not be coming home. The reality of our nationhood story is that much has happened that we should be proud of. Obviously things have happened that we should not be proud of but notwithstanding that on behalf of the people I represent I say that we have given much and contributed much. On the way forward we must be factored into the equation. 
At the end of the day all title in this country traces itself to Maori customary title. That is a fact. No one can obtain a title in this country unless he or she can trace back to a title investigation case under the Maori Land Act and out of the Native Land Court of 1865 onwards. The whole title system in this country is founded on customary rights. That is a legal fact and it was laid down in a number of pieces of legislation out of this House. Customary rights underpin Kiwi nationhood and they are customary Maori rights not customary Westminster rights. If we understand our history we will not be bequeathed its mistakes. The reality is that there is a huge bevy of precedent and law based on customary rights. In 2003 the Court of Appeal made a very important decision. For the first time it did not declare the extent or scope of our customary rights but it founded Aboriginal title. This is not about a treaty-founded right. This right and these ranges of usages go to the heart of our constitution. It is about our common law rights. 
Members opposite refuse to know what our constitution is about. They do it in a mischievous fashion. They have sat for years in this House and have known about it but when they are on the Opposition benches they want to know not about developing a nation but about dividing it—like the member for Coromandel over there the redhead who runs up and down maliciously driving divisions into the communities of the Coromandel my own ancestral homeland. She is the type of member whom the National Party just loves to have in its ranks at the moment. She is redhead and rednecked. It is disgraceful what that member gets up to in the Coromandel. 
As we move forward do we as Maori communities acknowledge that there is treaty fatigue? Of course we acknowledge that. Do we acknowledge that in a number of circumstances “iwi” stands for “I want it. I want it”? Of course we acknowledge that. Are we far away from the end of nationhood? Not too far. The proposal that the Government laid on the table last week goes a long way to address a number of things. It states four major principles. The first is the principle of access. From the time of the Court of Appeal decision onward we said that extant rights both private and public would be protected. The Prime Minister and the Attorney-General said that we say it and we repeat it. We are sick of the mischief-making on the Opposition benches for cheap political polling requirements. Will Opposition members get it into their heads that it is not working? We will protect the existing private and public rights of access of all Kiwis to the foreshore and seabed. That answers the Hon Nick Smith’s mischief-making four-square. 
The next step is the right to regulate. As the Deputy Prime Minister said in this debate we have the right to regulate. There is a “public domain” and us Kiwis have a right in 2003 to write our constitution. That is what this Parliament is about and that is what this debate should be about. We have a right to write “public domain” into our legislature. In determining that to be the case we do not have to accept Westminster precedent all the time—we have a right to shape and design our own destiny. The right of the Government to regulate goes to the heart of our sovereignty and our constitution. That is the safeguard in this whole proposal. It is the safeguard for all Kiwis. 
That is why I am grateful to be under this leadership in this Government and in this party driving this particular nationhood chapter forward. When our grandchildren look back on it they will say that we were blessed by privileged statesmanship and leadership. Thank the Lord that we are here and Opposition members are over there. From the leader of the Opposition to the leader of “Dad’s army” over there—the member for Tauranga—all they want to do is to divide and rule. They know how to burn but not how to build. They know all about smarminess but nothing about how smart and creative we can be. 
The third principle is protection. Under no circumstances can one override a common law right founded 5-0 by a Court of Appeal. To override it would be the highest form of injustice. Nick Smith Bill English and Winston Peters want that to happen but our constitution cannot allow that. It would be a beacon call to Maori to revolt. That is not the type of nationhood we want to hand on to our grandchildren. 
The fourth issue is the right to certainty. Kiwis need to know that there is a Government that can regulate and define the issues for them. We will do that for them but we will not override the right of protection. As I have indicated the Maori Land Court will be resourced to explore the extent of customary rights. 
I want to conclude by saying that I do not agree with ownership or title. They are attributes and values of the judaeo-Christian Western European Westminster legal system and bear no resemblance to Maori rights. Our rights are about the right to bequeath to protect and to hand on. They have nothing to do with the monetary value that the Opposition wants to apply. I am grateful that we have a Government that has put a proposal on the table. I look forward to Kiwi communities engaging in it and coming back to us fruitfully. We will legislate for it. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.