Mahuta Nanaia: Reinstatement of BusinessText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMahuta Nanaia: Reinstatement of Business[Sitting date: 09 December 2008. Volume:651;Page:77. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. I too take this opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment to your position in this House and to congratulate your deputy and assistants. We look forward to your impartiality in navigating through the debates yet to come.In taking a brief call on this carry-over motion in relation to the business of the House I make a number of comments. Firstly I am pleased that the carry-over motion includes a number of Treaty settlement bills because I know that the progress made by Dr Michael Cullen in that regard has received widespread support amongst iwithroughout the country and that they would like to see those bills progressed. I am also pleased that that was referred to by Mr Key in the Speech from the Throne.I also wish to highlight an area that may need some clarification by the Government in regard to the Waka Umanga (Māori Corporations) Bill. When that bill was going through the House it was objected to by both National and the Māori Party. I think it would be of interest to a number of members in the House for those parties to clarify their position on the bill because if the fund that was proposed to be set up as a development fund to aid and assist Māori going forward was to be clawed back by perhaps Māori affairs or by National Government interests for other purposes that would be a matter of great interest to members and certainly to members of the Opposition.I will briefly allude to the comments made on the foreshore and seabed issue. We have learnt from minority parties that no amount of dancing on a pinhead can get away from the fact that the reason why the Foreshore and Seabed Act (Repeal) Bill was deferred in the last Parliament was that it was at the request of the Māori Party. No amount of posturing in the House and setting some history to that matter can get away from the fact that at the request of the Māori Party the bill was deferred. Indeed the bill was not supported by National in Opposition at the time. It will be very interesting in Parliament going forward to see whether the Government intends to pick up that bill or whether it intends to implement the Nga Rohe Moana o Nga Hapu o Ngati Porou Bill which represents an agreement reached with iwi under the existing legislation aimed at protecting the interests and rights of iwi in the foreshore and seabed. Ngāti Porou too would be very interested if the Government intended to pull away from that. So although points have been made by the Māori Party that it is the independent voice of Māori in this House that is contrary to the position put by iwi on that bill that they are the Treaty partner that they see some gains in protecting and preserving their customary interests under the bill and that the bill must go forward.Let us also be really clear as the Māori Party has made a point of stating its position on the bill that it has the ability under this ACT National and Māori Party agreement to negotiate some support for its repeal bill if it believes so strongly in it. The Maori Party is obviously unable to do that so no amount of posturing in the House can get away from the fact that there is no support for the repeal of the legislation.We too would support a review of the foreshore and seabed legislation because we see iwi taking up the opportunity to reach agreements that protect their customary rights under the existing legislation and only time will tell whether the positive implementation of legislation in this area will assert rights for Māori. So although the Māori Party may dance on a pinhead on the issue of the foreshore and seabed quite clearly it is up to this National Government to state where it is putting its stake in the sand on that issue. Thank you.