Davidson MaramaMARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā hoki koutou ōku whanaunga o Te Tai Rāwhiti o Ngāti Porou hoki.[Greetings to my kinsmen from the East Coast and from Ngāti Porou.]I'm really pleased to finally be at the second reading stage after quite a lengthy submissions process and working out from the submissions then the exact changes that needed to be made to the bill so that we are able to arrive and report back from it. As the deputy chair of the Māori Affairs Committee a massive mihi—Papa Apirana Mahuika was absolutely visionary right through to the end. This is where we have come to to be able to pick up the work which was also the work of ex-Minister Chris Finlayson and to bring this bill to the House. It's had quite a bit of a background and my colleagues have talked about how there was a deed of agreement in 2004; there was the Foreshore and Seabed Act which was repealed and replaced. The deed had to be amended to fit into the new legislation and this is what we are debating and pushing through the House today.If we go back to the purpose this is about affirming what has always been really the kaitiaki the mana Motuhake and sovereignty care and responsibilities that ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou have always had. This was the visionary step that Papa Api was taking and taking hapū alongside to put this legislation in place—quite historical. It is the only legislation like it that actually manages to carve out specific responsibilities and empowers iwi and affirms iwi with what they already had to be able to have some responsibility over the longevity of the rohe moana in a way that protects the ecosystem the food systems and the entire environment for many generations to come. And that really is part of the purpose of this bill. It's a legal expression protection and recognition of the continued exercise of mana by ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou in relation to ngā rohe moana o ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou. And so I wanted to bring all of these discussions back to the actual purpose of the bill.We had a fantastic day in Kaiti as the Māori Affairs Committee travelling to Gisborne to hear from a packed community—very passionate kōrero. I was thinking back to the visions as we were sitting there endowed with the waiata and the kōrero and the history of everyone in that room and everyone who they brought with them—tūpuna gone before us—and everyone not just in the room upholding the ahi kā fires as well. So I was thinking back to that room to the passionate deeply felt kōrero to the protection of hapū boundaries—Rongowhakaata and others—making sure that they're heard all voices and wanting to acknowledge that day you were absolutely heard. There were many stories there were concerns and there were ways to reassure people also in some of the fears and valid concerns that were raised. So that was another of those very privileged days that you get to have as an MP on the Māori Affairs Committee.Of course alongside all of those submissions we heard from industry voices like Eastland Port and the New Zealand Rock Lobster Industry Council. I just wanted to pick up a bit on those submissions. I know the Hon Chris Finlayson also expanded on that in a lot more detail but through the submission process I wanted to get a sense of understanding. Obviously iwi consent will be required—which is right—for resource consent applications in areas over which it has customary title as well as for proposals such as marine reserves.Now there were naturally going to be some concerns raised—for example Tairawhiti Rock Lobster Industry Association said at the time that if the bill was passed it would provide opportunities for significant closures of areas impacting on the industry. So if we go into section 13 of the bill which is about the preservation of certain rights and accommodated matters and I think even further into some of the other sections it really is about—see Māori are considered well researched well informed know their stuff Ngāti Porou. So they were more than aware of the sorts of considerations that were going to have to take place in pushing through this legislation.I did want to pick up on one comment though. That was from Tairawhiti Rock Lobster Industry Association where it said How does 70 years of fishing not count as use and occupation? How is use and occupation measured?" And I feel quite comfortable saying they may now sympathise or empathise somewhat a little bit with centuries and centuries of occupation and use and kaitiaki responsibilities and hopefully can remain aware of the generosity with which Ngāti Porou have actually progressed this legislation with consideration and accommodation of those interests which is not exactly what was done to Māori in the processes of colonisation and land removal. So I welcome this bill and the considerate way that it is upholding all of the interests.Only for the purposes of celebrating the passage of the bill I did want to say that yes of course when we're talking about land and moana and whenua and Māori customary rights we're going to attract some of the less tasteful kinds of submissions. We didn't attract many but I just wanted to highlight that there was a good tenor of conversation when the Māori Affairs Committee actually rejected one of the submissions on the grounds that it was offensive. There weren't a lot of those but I just wanted to say that it was very easy for us to be able to keep the tenor of the conversation focused on the issues balancing various accommodative matters and we were absolutely dismissive if I can say it of some of the quite racist views that came into the Māori Affairs Committee but that was just a little bit.I then really wanted to move on—oh gosh I've got two minutes. I really wanted to pick up on one of the major changes which was the discussion between Te Whānau a Iritekura and Te Whānau a Te Ao Tawarirangi boundaries. What I really appreciated was that it became obvious in the bill that there had been a bit of a mix up with those boundaries. Both hapū met—and it concerned Koutunui Point down the coast—and agreed that we would shift and name the boundaries to be more appropriate. That was good because immediately on the Māori Affairs Committee we thought "OK so this actually needs to be put right." The advisers here in Parliament absolutely agreed. There were discussions between all parties and an agreement was reached and I did want to make quite a big deal out of that change because it's why it's so important that people have these ancestral connections and these histories to make sure that we're doing our job right in this place. It was so important for example that there was acknowledgment that both Te Whānau a Iritekura and Te Whānau a Te Ao Tawarirangi have ancestral connections to the place Te Ngutu o Kore and that they would continue to share according to tikanga the responsibilities and the guardianship responsibilities to uphold those whenua and those rohe moana.So those of us on the committee were quite familiar with the map down the coast there and that there needed to be a shift around Koutunui. There's a difference between Koutunui Point and Koutunui Head and I think it was just a genuine mistake to begin with but actually the outcome was that we had some fantastic affirmations and conversations about overreaching into rohe moana of different hapū. So I think that was actually really positive and a good learning experience for all of us. All in all we'll go through to the third reading and really look forward to cementing this properly in this house. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker."