Turei Metiria: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Turei Metiria: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17034] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens have proposed two major amendments to Part 2 the first being to clause 12 the entrenchment clause. New Zealand First will not be supporting this clause because it is not that concerned with the potential sale of land—in particular the sale of seabed and foreshore land. One of the criticisms that Winston Peters has made of the entrenchment clause is that it will not have any effect. I say to him that it may be that entrenchment is largely symbolic in the minds of New Zealanders—that it is a symbolic gesture showing that this Parliament takes the restriction on the sale of foreshore land seriously and that it is prepared to use all its mechanisms to make sure that it cannot happen. I have no doubt that we cannot stop a Government in the future from doing whatever it wants but even if at worst it is a symbolic gesture it is critical for New Zealanders to know that this Parliament will not sell-on any of the foreshore and seabed. New Zealand First’s refusal to support this clause clearly demonstrates that it is not prepared to support even a symbolic act that will enable New Zealanders to feel confident that this Parliament including New Zealand First does not want the foreshore and seabed to go into foreign ownership.  
The Greens of course have been very clear to follow their principle with practice. We have petitions in place at this very moment to stop the sale of land to foreign interests because we believe that our land is finite and that it needs to be protected and kept in New Zealand hands for New Zealand people. This entrenchment clause will make that clear to the public of New Zealand. Clearly New Zealand First is simply not prepared to put its money where its mouth is and support the absolutely best possible protection that this Parliament can provide in order to make sure that our foreshore and seabed cannot go into private hands.  
The other major amendment we are proposing is to clause 28. Margaret Wilson said that the contiguous land test in clause 28 is when one can get a territorial customary rights order only if one has ownership of the land that borders the foreshore and seabed as is part of the common law. She knows she is wrong about that. It is not in the common law. Paul McHugh who gave evidence for the Crown at the Waitangi Tribunal said at the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee that it is something the court should take into account and that it is a consideration it will have regard to but that it is not necessary to make it a condition of providing a territorial customary rights order. He never said at all in the select committee that it was part of the common law. He never said it was absolute that one had to own the land bordering the foreshore and seabed before one could make a claim of customary exclusive use and possession over the foreshore and seabed itself.  
This provision is a clear deception. It is not right that it is in this bill; it is absolutely unnecessary. This bill could make the court give consideration to contiguous land ownership. It does not need to make it a condition. Making it a condition means that very few—perhaps two or three—iwi throughout this whole country will be able to get a territorial customary rights order. It will be virtually impossible for iwi whanau and hapu across this country to meet those tests because they are so stringent and unnecessary. It is unbelievable that that clause could have been put forward by Dail Jones who himself has some legal knowledge who heard and understood the submissions from Paul McHugh in the select committee and who recognised that contiguous land ownership might be a factor to take into account but that it certainly should not and did not have to be an absolute.  
There is a whole list of other real problems with the way that clause 28 has been reconstructed after the negotiations between Labour and New Zealand First. The real difficulty is around the proof needed to show that one can exclude others and could exclude others. It was argued in the select committee as well that one did not need proof that one did exclude people but proof that one had the right to exclude. Those are two different things. We live in a colonised land. Maori will find it extremely difficult to show that they have had any control over other people using their land—particularly the foreshore and seabed—over time when the whole of the country has been under the misapprehension that it has been open ground owned by the Crown for so long.