Mahuta Nanaia: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mahuta Nanaia: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17003] 
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 In my previous contribution I outlined that in new clause 2A there is an implicit fiduciary obligation on the Crown. I want to pick up on a point in clause 3 “Purposes” relating to subclause (a): “vesting the full legal and beneficial ownership of the public foreshore and seabed in the Crown;”. As the debate has progressed over time I see that people have misconstrued the concerns of Maori as an issue of sovereignty. Although at the extreme end of the debate there is a strong view about the sovereignty interests of Maori it is irreconcilable to some extent with the treaty arguments that are then put up. If we move towards the middle ground in order for the Crown to exercise its fiduciary obligation it has to be quite clear on what basis it does that. New clause 2A provides that level of clarity and does that.  
For the extreme ends of this debate I think that new clause 2A will make very clear that there is an ongoing fiduciary obligation and will bring people more towards the middle of where this argument sits. The Crown will have a full expression of its ability to be able to assert on the one hand the common law interests of Maori within the context of this bill and outside of this bill another pathway that is more fitting and aligned to the Treaty of Waitangi settlements process. That understanding has been missed quite a bit in the debate probably because people like to play around on the edges of it.  
On the issues that were raised by the previous speaker with regard to the common law I think those are more apt for the Part 2 debate. That is the context for them. In saying that I point out in response that Dr Paul McHugh said that for the development of common law within New Zealand we cannot get away from the issues of tikanga and the Treaty of Waitangi. I think there is a debate to be had that can probably be extended in Part 2. My contribution is very brief in this respect but I highlight that there has been a lot of game-playing on the edges of this debate around the question of sovereignty.  
Coming from a tribe that signed the Declaration of Independence only—from a group of people who can say that they did not sign the treaty but have been treated as though they were signatories and have suffered the most—I will say that it is our responsibility as parliamentarians in this country to try to bring people together notwithstanding the historical facts that have occurred over time. It requires a lot of effort and commitment to act in good faith as responsible parliamentarians and leaders of this country. Although I accept that there is a lot of emotion around this issue I also accept that if we are to have a nation that works together and commits to that we basically have to look at the realities of what we can achieve here today and move from that point. I look forward to more cooperation within the Government on this question. I think it is important that we really put to rest some ridiculous expectations that are out there. 
 The member from Marlborough who will not be with us next year made the point that there are interests amongst Maori who want to go for freehold title. The reality is that under the Maori Land Court and Te Ture Whenua Maori Act that is all they could have been awarded had they gone along that track. So when that presented itself I guess it presented the real question of us all in the domain of Tangaroa or the foreshore and seabed which is what it was that we were really trying to achieve here. Yes interests exist—customary property rights I believe—but was there a general view amongst New Zealanders that anyone owned the foreshore and seabed? I do not think that had been contemplated very clearly within any statute. In so far as it affects Maori there was general agreement throughout the submission process that Maori accepted that access to the foreshore and seabed the inalienability of title and the rights of navigation are public rights for all New Zealanders.  
I think balancing up where the meeting-point was those were the three clear points we had in working out how to find a way through this. Clearly the laws that could affirm title presented some difficulties. We may not be there yet. However those difficulties have forced us into a situation where we have had to reconsider just what are the customary property interests and rights of Maori to the foreshore and seabed. That is what this bill is moving towards.