Dalziel Lianne: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:652;Page:1822] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I had wanted to defer to the representative from the Maori Party in particular as he has a really important Supplementary Order Paper on the Table but obviously he is not going to take the call. It is a bit difficult to comment on that Supplementary Order Paper without having the benefit of his contribution to the debate which is why I was very keen for him to speak first but I may take an opportunity to speak again after he has. 
I am deeply concerned about the proposal in the Supplementary Order Paper to exclude Maori customary land and Maori freehold land land that has ceased to be Maori land and land acquired from Maori for public works etc. as listed in this proposed amendment. I am a little unclear from the Minister’s explanation as to whether he has received advice on whether this particular provision adds anything to the existing status of Maori land. Does it represent something that is required to be addressed in the legislation or can we leave it to the application of existing principles under current statute? I suspect it is the latter rather than the former and because this has been brought to the Committee by way of Supplementary Order Paper and we have not had a presentation from the person proposing it it makes it very difficult for us. My instinct would be to vote against the inclusion of Part 1 clause 5 definitions but not on the basis that in principle I object to what it is trying to achieve; I just believe that the current law already enables that to be the case. A very clear statement from the Minister—not just in the Committee stage but certainly in the third reading on the bill—would be very important to clarify that in order that there is a clear statement of record in terms of the Government position on the application of the existing law. 
There are important issues to have consideration of and I am very mindful of the fact. It may sound as though I am not speaking to the bill itself but that is because this amendment raises the issue of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 which was—of course—the Act that was under consideration in respect of what has become known as the foreshore and seabed issue. The reason I raise that is because the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 would never have been written the way it was written if in fact the  
In re the Ninety-Mile Beach 
 case had never been decided in the way it was decided; there was no way a National Government in 1993 would have passed legislation that would have allowed for parts of the foreshore and seabed to become classified as Maori land and able to have a registrable interest under the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act if it were not for the  
In re the Ninety-Mile Beach 
 decision that actually limited the application of that registration to land that was contiguous to land considered Maori land under that Act. 
I think it is an extremely important provision because most people do not understand the foreshore and seabed issue. All the court did was to overturn the  
In re the Ninety-Mile Beach  
case and that had a huge impact on legislation that had been passed in the belief that that law would stand. That is why it is really important that we have a very clear statement about what the legal rights and obligations are in respect of this issue and why it does not necessarily need to be dealt with in the context of this legislation.