Tanczos Nandor: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Tanczos Nandor: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16988] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I am ashamed to be witnessing what is happening in this Parliament today. What we are seeing is a new raupatu—a new confiscation—in this Parliament in the year 2004. Government members can argue about it trying to convince themselves and the rest of the country that that is not what is going on but this bill is nothing other than a confiscation of Maori property rights. I find it curious that at a time when we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to patch up injustices from the past trying to address ongoing suffering and grievance arising from confiscations of the past we are about to perpetuate the same thing in Parliament today. I am ashamed to see that. 
I do not doubt that there are members on the Government side who also feel shame at what is going on. I find it curious when I hear intelligent members of the Government talking about this measure—people like John Tamihere who has fronted the Government campaign on this issue—and saying it is not taking away rights from Maori. I fail to understand how the member can say that. I heard Russell Fairbrother who chaired the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee talking about his mokopuna last night and I challenge him to think about the legacy he is leaving for his descendants when it comes to this bill—the legacy that he and this Government are leaving. 
I know that this bill is passing with the support of New Zealand First. I do not doubt that some New Zealand First members also feel ashamed of what is happening today although we would not know it because most of them clearly are not allowed to speak on this bill and are leaving it to only Winston Peters and Dail Jones to do so. I debated on  
Marae 
 with Winston Peters on this very issue and I challenged his position on this— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Where? 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: On the  
Marae 
 programme. Maybe Mr Peters does not remember but if he checks the video he will see it there.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Which one? 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: He tried to deny it on Maori television but his own website showed that the New Zealand First position was to confiscate not only foreshore and seabed but waterways mountains and forests as well. Of course he tried to deny it on Maori television but his own website showed it. 
It is telling that New Zealand First put Dail Jones in charge of negotiating this issue. Dail Jones is a man who follows the Justice Prendergast interpretation of the treaty. He believes that the treaty is a nullity. How could New Zealand First put him in charge of negotiating the New Zealand First position on this bill? 
The Government has ended up relying on New Zealand First because it has got itself in a very difficult position with its knee-jerk overreaction to the finding of the Court of Appeal. It is true as Dover Samuels has said that there has been a lot of misinformation about what the Court of Appeal said. It did not say that Maori own all the foreshore and seabed but that does not take away from the power of what it actually did say. What it said was that the Government the Crown in general did not own the foreshore and seabed and that Maori could go to court to prove their customary ownership. The Court of Appeal stated that that would be difficult to prove and it implied that there would not be many places in the country that would be affected but it recognised that Maori had that right. But the Government for its political advantage chose to rark up Pakeha fear about Maori closing off access to the beaches. It knew that was wrong and false but it chose to do it for political advantage. 
The really interesting thing is that since the introduction of the bill I have come across at least one example of a Maori landowner who previously from goodwill had been totally happy to allow general access to the beach that that person’s land adjoined but who is now closing it off because of anger and disgust at what the Government is doing with this bill. That is a shame on the House and it shows that the Government is setting back relationships between Maori and Pakeha and other New Zealanders considerably by the passage of the bill. 
It is not about going to the beach or access for a beach barbecue. The areas that those kinds of things are concerned with are very unlikely to be covered by court recognition of customary ownership because of the conditions of exclusive and uninterrupted use. It is not about Maori denying Pakeha access to the beach for a barbecue; it is about the fact that the Government does not want Maori to have control. This bill is about putting control back into the hands of local councils. The Government does not want Maori to have real power in relation to these issues particularly when it comes to commercial activity. It especially does not want Maori to have any kind of veto right because it knows that one of the strongest voices for environmental protection is tangata whenua. 
JOHN TAMIHERE (Labour—Tamaki Makaurau) 
: 
 I have listened with interest to a number of contributions in the Committee today. The difficulty that a number of members have in getting their minds round this legislation comes from their inability to understand the key cultural drivers behind Maori thinking so I want to express those in regard to their application to Part 1. 
At no time have Maori ever wanted ownership in the sense of freehold title fee simple title. When we talk about rangatiratanga kaiwhakahaeretanga and matters of kaitiakitanga and the like we do not talk about the type of fee simple freehold title system that has been implemented under this and a whole range of Governments. We do not talk of that. At no time have our people ever wanted the level of ownership expressed here. This legislation acknowledges and recognises that. It recognises the fact that we are stewards and guardians. It recognises the fact that those rights have been tuku to us from our ancestors. It recognises the fact that in no circumstances should we be able to alienate those and lose our customary heritage that has been handed to us. 
We were faced with the challenge of having to encapsulate our cultural requirements for the very first time in a piece of legislation. I say to the Committee that I commend the legislation to it because it is the first attempt at writing that manual—in actually evidencing Maori customary rights. It is the first attempt on this scale ever conducted by a Parliament in this country. We are doing the best we possibly can in that regard. 
The next point is about the way in which the law must work. Much ado has been made about the legislation being racist. It is not racist legislation on the basis of—solely—the law. One cannot rock up to Parliament as the Hon Ken Shirley or Gerry Brownlee have said and say that this legislation is racist because it deals only with Maori. It is legislation that deals with Maori because Maori solely have the rights. If we take away those rights and walk across them we destroy the whole constitution. We would not have law; we would not have order. There is a difference between law order and justice and Maori have the right of equality of opportunity before the law under article 3 of the Treaty of Waitangi. Maori have a right to good governance under article 1 of the treaty. Maori have a right to the retention of our cultural processes as endorsed and encompassed within this legislation under article 2 of the treaty. So for the very first time in this country we are starting to see the merging and the converging of our great Waitangi Tribunal jurisprudence on the one hand and our constitutional bedrock on the other based on the common law. We walk across those at our own peril. 
The Opposition does that. Opposition members confuse this very simple process and in trying to confuse it are confusing the rights that Maori have—which are different rights just as the Fens people in Great Britain and a whole range of other indigenous folk have different rights—which are bonded in our constitution of the common law. The fact that Maori have those rights in a larger sense of the word is just a fact of history. It is a fact of the settlement and it is a fact of the law. We either uphold the law in this country or we do not. The foreshore and the seabed—[ 
Interruption 
] It is a quote from hell I tell the member; the stench on him will be pungent in the next few months I can assure him—particularly from the allegations he has made. I move to more important matters on the foreshore and seabed. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am not sure whether you were listening to that tract of the former Minister’s speech but I believe that what he actually did was issue a threat across the Chamber which is quite unparliamentary and he should be required to either explain himself or withdraw and apologise. 
Darren Hughes 
: I did not take that inference from what the member for Tamaki Makaurau said at all. He talked about the future in the same way the Hon Tony Ryall talked in his address about the future political fortunes of people in this House. Mr Tamihere was doing the same. There is a lot of sensitivity on the other side of the Chamber. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: There should be recognition that when a member makes those sorts of comments there is clearly a sinister aspect behind them. I am sorry but there is. It does not matter how much the gender-confused Labour junior whip wants to titter away there; that remains a fact. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member should stick to the point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I think Mr Tamihere should be required to explain himself or to withdraw. He will not apologise—that would be too much to expect of him—but perhaps he could at least withdraw the remark. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for all the options he offered me. I heard what Mr Tamihere said. He moved on very quickly from it but if you object to it I ask Mr Tamihere to withdraw only. 
JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I withdraw. I bring the Committee’s attention back to new clause 2A “Object”. More particularly I indicate that the Government has actually affirmed the “protection of the association of whanau hapu and iwi with areas of the public foreshore and seabed.” which is to be cemented into the object of the bill. Secondly as a reinforcement of that new clause 3(b) provides for the “recognition and protection of ongoing customary rights to undertake or engage in activities uses or practices in areas of the public foreshore and seabed;”.