Okeroa Mahara: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Okeroa Mahara: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17161] 
MAHARA OKEROA (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 It is with some pride that I stand here. However there will be people who disagree with that position. I want to explore further the quotation that Dover Samuels used. This is what was said by Dr Brash in his interview with Paul Holmes: “We will oppose it with every fibre of our being.”—na katu kaha mai te tangata; with every fibre of our being. I want to explore further the fact that this Parliament was denied that extraordinary experience and spectacle—because it did not happen. We did not see that “fibre”; we did not see the tu kaha o te tangata. We saw nothing. Although that sounds hugely Churchillian at least Sir Winston Churchill that great statesman of the 20th century stood on the beaches and fought. Maybe that is a classic example for the Leader of the Opposition who denied us the opportunity to see that incredible spectacle.  
The other unusual thing was what we heard from the honourable member Wayne Mapp yesterday when he said he believes in what he reads in the newspaper. What an astounding public announcement that was to make in this Chamber! How could he do that? Why does he take the  
New Zealand Herald  
as the basis for his belief? Maori are criticised because they have a spiritual belief long held over many generations yet there is Wayne Mapp saying he believes in what he reads in the newspaper. That is astounding.  
Another thing that I heard last night refers to wahi tapu. It came from the member for Coromandel. I cannot quote it exactly but this is what it meant. In a sense the member said that she would not tolerate any customary value other than what was imposed on her. Yet Maori have a whole history of being imposed on. What this bill does is to recognise the customary rights and usages of Maori—as we should do. How can someone come from Coromandel and have that kind of attitude? If we are to talk about this bill being racist what do we have a demonstration of in that comment?  
Another point came from the Hon Dr Nick Smith. He had something to say about wahi tapu. There are degrees of wahi tapu for sure. If he is talking about the Wakapuakataiapure estuary then he should know he is the person who generated all the opposition to it. On that estuary there is a wahi tapu and it is an urupa. I have been led to respect non-Maoriwahi tapu like churches museums or whatever non-Maori see as significant. We have been brought up to respect those places so I would not drive my four-wheel drive vehicle over a non-Maori cemetery just in order to get to the beach. How can the provisions that we are making in our bill be racist?  
This bill is not about land; it is about the foreshore and seabed. It is not about people throwing toys out of cots or about political point-scoring. It is not about taking emotive positions that are not based on the facts of the matter. As a member of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee I was appalled at one of the submitters a young person who gave us a co-submission in which she said categorically that she would not be able to go to the beach to get kai for her koro and kuia. How can the Opposition be responsible for transmitting a message of that nature? How can it do that? That is totally immoral. I have to ask where that comes from in terms of propaganda and misinformation. How can that be so? New Zealand First and this Government are accused on the one hand of alienating the foreshore and seabed and on the other hand of stealing them. We are not stealing the foreshore and seabed. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 We of course have seen all this before. That is why we believe that this bill should be called the “Just One More Rip-off in a Long History of Them Bill”. The tragedy is that this mean-minded approach was unnecessary and is unnecessarily destructive. There is a simple solution to this issue and the Greens have been saying that from the beginning. It is to allow Maori to proceed to the court—allow their customary property rights to be recognised and allow them due process—but to amend Te Ture Whenua Maori Act to allow customary rights to be recognised without a transfer to fee simple title and to require negotiation over rights of reasonable public access. In that way we could recognise mana whenua guarantee public access and meet the needs of all New Zealanders. I would be more confident that public access would remain and that the foreshore and seabed would remain in New Zealand hands if it is left in Maori collective ownership rather than in the hands of the Crown. We only have to remember the fourth Labour Government to know what happens to national assets that are left in the hands of the Crown. We all know what is going on.  
Russell Fairbrother told us that this legislation is not a land confiscation and that it is just a codification of customary rights. I believe that the member was being duplicitous when he said that because it is pretty obvious that a whole heap of Maori land was stolen by the use of “legal codification” in the past. That loss of Maori land is not and cannot be rectified by tossing the tangata whenua a few crumbs. Dover Samuels said that if Parliament had intended the Maori Land Court to look at the foreshore and seabed it would have called Te Ture Whenua Maori Act the “Te Ture Whenua Maori Foreshore and Seabed Act”. But I am surprised that the member seems to have the view that only those rights defined by the Crown are legitimate rights. I would not have thought that the member would take that kind of view. I would have thought he would recognise that one of the important points of the Court of Appeal decision was its recognition of customary rights that pre-existed the assertion of the right of governorship by the Crown.  
Russell Fairbrother also said that property rights should not be determined by the colour of one’s skin and other things. That is quite right. What we are talking about is property rights that are determined by kinship. We all recognise that. I have a right to inherit property that my parents leave to me and that is a property right determined by kinship. We are talking about a similar kind of thing but this bill removes property rights on the basis of ethnicity. As the Hon Richard Prebble and other members of this Committee have said this bill removes property rights from Maori on the basis that they are Maori. It takes away customary property rights under common law but it leaves untouched property rights under the Torrens fee simple title system which pertains to land owned by Pakeha and others. So as has been said this is a racist law. It is specifically designed to target Maori and no other people.  
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Rubbish! 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Of course it is. This is really about the inability of the Crown to deal with the concept of collective ownership based not on Crown grant but on tikanga Maori.  
It is curious that other countries seem to be able to deal with that issue. Canada has jurisprudence around indigenous forms of collective ownership but in this country we seem to be simply incapable of dealing with the issue because the Crown is absolutely paranoid about losing control and power. Exactly the same desire to maintain control has been behind the Government’s attacks on the Supreme Court. We saw the comments by Trevor Mallard that were reported in the newspaper today criticising the merit of the judges who sit on the Supreme Court. I think that the Court of Appeal decision on the case that resulted in this legislation made when those same judges were on the Court of Appeal is exactly what is behind those comments. We have the courts making decisions that are uncomfortable and inconvenient for the Government. The only recourse that the Government has is to attack their credibility—to undermine the courts and to question their merit and competence. That behaviour is totally opposed to the conventions we have on the separation of powers. It is totally unacceptable. The Government needs to have a good hard look at itself.