Harawira Hone: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Harawira Hone: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17196] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Independent—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson huri rauna kia ora tatou te Whare. First of all I think we need to put to bed the ridiculous story from the Labour Party that the reason why Labour passed the Foreshore and Seabed Act was that it thought National would do something racist. That would have to be the biggest joke if it were not so tragic that I have heard in a long long time. It was not National that said it would take away the foreshore and seabed; it was Labour. Labour said it would do that and it went ahead and did it. I think we need to clear that up straight away. 
I also thank the Labour Party for allowing me the opportunity to speak on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill during the second reading and hopefully for granting me the opportunity to speak on it again in the third reading. 
I congratulate the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Chris Finlayson on doing a good job on this bill. He has been very enthusiastic and very open. I think he has been willing to travel and willing to listen to people’s views. But I think the real problem for the Minister is that he does not support this bill. He does not support it because he knows that it does not lead to justice for Maori. The Minister does not support this bill because he would have dearly loved to provide the opportunity for Maori to gain tupuna title in terms of the foreshore and seabed. The Minister does not support this bill because he went around and said to Maori groups and to the iwi leadership in particular that if they could not get their foreshore and seabed back through the courts he would leave the door open for them to come and see him and negotiate the possibility to get their foreshore and seabed back by discussion with him. 
Now something else has happened. That deal was changed and that was the deal that the Maori Party supported: going to court and if not being successful in court negotiation with the Minister. That deal with the Minister morphed into a deal in Parliament. I understand today that that deal has morphed into nothing. That deal is now completely off the table and the only deal left is the court deal. The problem here is that the court deal is no deal. Just because the door has been opened to the courtroom it does not mean to say justice is available to Maori. When the Minister himself says Maori must prove full and exclusive use and occupation of the foreshore and seabed without substantial interruption and according to tikanga he is setting a test that is so high that no whanau and no hapu can even afford to contemplate going to court. It is as difficult as that to prove. I think Mr Parker raised the notion of local body involvement on the foreshore and seabed which would negate that ability. Others have mentioned the fact that land was taken illegally but that does not apply in this situation. It still means that Maori do not have the ability to get the foreshore and seabed back. 
I pick up on the comments made by Metiria Turei about the racism implicit in this bill. I understand that people have been concerned about my mentioning the fact that the bill is racist legislation only 15 times in my second reading speech. That is because it is. Unfortunately it is also because the Minister thinks the bill is racist. The Minister himself does not agree that things should be imposed upon Maori that are not imposed upon others in this country in terms of the way in which the foreshore and seabed is managed. In terms of the issue about mana—and I see that the word “mana” is used freely in the bill and in particular in the preamble—I note that in terms of sovereignty in terms of control of primary minerals in terms of control of access and in terms of access to resources all of those statutory authorities still remain with the Crown. So there is no mana because those issues are elements of mana. They are still wrapped up in Crown ownership and that of course is the issue that Maori were fighting against. Although the title has been changed nominally from Crown ownership to no title in fact the statutory authority in relation to all of those matters still remains with the Crown. 
I have heard often that issues of this nature should have broad support. Clearly Labour’s Act did not have broad support but neither does this legislation from the National Government. In fact this bill does not even have the support of the general Pakeha population let alone the Maori population in this country. I think that is a concern or it should be a concern to the Minister. I know for example that this bill is not what Maori people want. In fact of the 72 submissions that came in on the bill from Maori organisations whanau hapu iwi marae and Maori collectives only one supported this bill. We could hardly say that is broad-based Maori support. This legislation is not even what all of the Maori MPs in this Chamber want. I know that Mr Quinn for example does not believe that this bill will achieve what his people would like to see happen in relation to the foreshore and seabed. 
Paul Quinn 
: How do you know that? 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Because the member told me so just outside the Chamber a few minutes ago. I say thank you very much to Mr Quinn. 
I also say this bill is not even what the Maori Party wants. I will quote from one of the co-leaders on this legislation: “If the negotiations had been just fair and moral the outcome would have been different.” I will repeat that in terms of whether the Maori Party supports this bill. One of the co-leaders said in her question and answer video on this legislation: “If the negotiations had been just fair and moral the outcome would have been different.” Clearly this bill is unjust unfair and immoral. How the Maori Party can say this is its bill when it is unjust unfair and immoral is beyond me. 
For all of those reasons I think we need to consider the proposal that was made by one Moana Jackson. It was a simple proposal that I know the Minister also liked and I will come to that at the end of my korero. 
But when the Maori Party said this was its bill I could not understand why it would say that when the principle of tupuna title that the Maori Party wanted in the bill was summarily dismissed early in the process. I cannot understand why the Maori Party says this is its bill when even the Maori Party membership does not support this bill. When the Maori Party says this is its bill I ask whether it heard the submissions that were submitted to the Maori Affairs Committee that said this bill fails to properly recognise and provide for the mana of hapu and iwi that it continues the original confiscation via investing in the common space that it sets the use and occupation tests too high that it limits the contents of a customary marine title that it introduces a costly adversarial and complicated court process that it remains discriminatory to Maori and that it continues to breach Te Tiriti o Waitangi tikanga Maori common law principles and international human rights standards including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 
Moana Jackson suggested a very simple solution to this problem and it was this: repeal the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act because everybody wants that to occur including Labour. So if the Minister wants broad support then there is the answer. We should repeal the 2004 Act and then put a moratorium on the foreshore and seabed so that Maori can take 2 years to discuss the way that will lead to a solution that achieves broad-based support and still achieves the kinds of principles that are important to Maori in terms of mana in terms of tikanga Maori and in terms of kaupapa. E mihi atu ki a koe Mr Chairman. Thank you very much. Huri noa te Whare kia ora tatou katoa.