Tamihere John: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Tamihere John: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16956] 
JOHN TAMIHERE (Labour—TamakiMakaurau) 
: 
 Kia ora huihui mai ratatau katoa. E te kaihautu me te whakaruruhau ki a matautenara koe Clem. 
[ 
Greetings to us all who are gathered here. Greetings indeed to you Mr Speaker Clem the one who shelters us 
.] 
Dobra vecher dobra vecher. 
This is a further mighty step on the road to fulfilling a nationhood manual. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You may not have picked it up but the member in addressing you used your Christian name. That is certainly not appropriate. It is grossly disorderly to call another member by his or her Christian name but to actually address you the Assistant Speaker as “Clem” is certainly out of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Not in the context he used it in. The member may interpret for the House—his first sentences—if he wishes. 
JOHN TAMIHERE 
: This bill is a further mighty step on the road to fulfilling our nationhood manual. We continue to write it. We continue to persevere and we continue to be stoic but above all we must continue to be fair in continuing to write this most important document. We support the foreshore and seabed legislation as part of the continuing and evolving journey of nationhood. We do not care what Tariana Turia says or what Pita Sharples says. We do not much care what Gerry Brownlee Don Brash or Rodney Hide might say. What we care about is building our nationhood. It is easy to oppose. It is easy to walk over justifiable rights that are deeply ingrained in the bedrock of our constitution in terms of our nationhood. They may well walk over them; this legislation does not. This bill would not be here were it not for the finding of the New Zealand Court of Appeal. It ruled that Maori may have a range of existing rights awaiting exploration and crystallisation.  
I am grateful to be a part of the Labour Party. This party represents all New Zealanders’ interests not just the vested interests of a few people in the National Party or ACT. Our parliamentary make-up is the face of the future. It reflects the face of a dynamic go-forward New Zealand but above all it reflects social justice. It reflects an acknowledgment of private property rights. It reflects the ability to bring our races together in this country and to forge them in a way that no other party in this Parliament can. Parties in the Opposition could never forge the continuity that this Labour Party can.  
I acknowledge the leadership of Dr Michael Cullen. I acknowledge the integrity of our leader the Prime Minister in this very fraught and difficult process. But most of all I acknowledge my Maori colleagues who have had to undergo a daily baptism of fire in their electorates on this most important issue.  
We support the Supplementary Order Paper for the following reasons. The first is protection. When our ancestors signed the treaty which is now entrenched and embedded in the constitution and the consciousness of this nation they signed up to three major articles. We acknowledged the first principle of governorship—kawanatanga. In turn the Government acknowledged our rights of rangatiratanga over matters Maori. In the third article our ancestors acknowledged that we would be treated with equality as citizens of this country. In allowing the Crown to assert legal and beneficial ownership over the foreshore and seabed we acknowledge the Crown’s right to govern.  
In governing the Crown has a significant fiduciary responsibility to Maori in terms of the principle of protection. It is well known that common law rights can be extinguished only if they are freely alienated by the holders—the Maori people. We demand the right of equality before the law granted to us under article 3 of the treaty. Just because our rights are different and have a different genesis—Mr Brownlee has to get his limited mind around that—that does not mean they are special and preferential. They are embedded in the bedrock of our constitution. We walk over those rights we take them away at our peril.  
Our ancestors fought—as they did in every battle that is respected around this Chamber—and died for the rights that have been justly obtained under this legislation. The National Party can talk about preference and special rights but they are not. The rights are different because we have a different genesis. We therefore support the legislation. This legislation attempts to codify and explain those rights.  
What about due process? Under no circumstances has the Crown moved to extinguish the right of due process. Maori can and I would argue must proceed to the Maori Land Court and the High Court to assert their rights. This legislation guarantees that. There is now a clear process for doing that and the possible results are now codified.  
Regarding the definition of customary territorial rights we have been somewhat constrained by our colleagues in New Zealand First. I acknowledge that. I leave it at that. That will come out at the Committee stage.  
It has often been said that we have stopped redress. Once the territorial customary right—aboriginal title if one likes—has been found by the High Court the High Court then directs the applicants to negotiate as they must under the legislation.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: This call was split by arrangement to give each speaker 5 minutes each.