Finlayson ChristopherHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): The Minister is absolutely correct about the intent of this legislation. Very briefly—and it's slightly outside the scope of the second reading but it puts the matter in context—the foreshore and seabed legislation was passed in 2007. After the Key Government assumed office in 2008 that legislation was reviewed and a decision was made to introduce new legislation restoring the right of people to go to court to seek their rights in relation to uninvestigated customary title. The complication in the matter was that Ngāti Porou by the time the Parliament of 2005 to 2008 was prorogued—or dissolved or whatever they do to parliaments these days—had already entered into an agreement. That agreement was the subject of legislation which had been introduced but there'd been no first reading and it languished at the bottom of the Order Paper for many years while the review took place the new legislation was passed and then the parties needed to work together to work out how one could integrate the existing Crown - Ngāti Porou arrangement into the new legislation. So the Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill (No 2) is exactly that: it is the legislation which gives effect to the rights that Ngāti Porou had negotiated with the Crown in their 2008 agreement subject to the new regime of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act.I was on the Māori Affairs Committee. There were a number of submissions which were heard and I agree with the Minister that under the chairmanship of Mr Tirikatene the committee did its job very well and so it's back to the House in pretty good time. I'm very pleased that before I exit this place I'm able to acknowledge Ngāti Porou and their work and also specifically acknowledge Selwyn Parata who has been a pillar of strength for the iwi since my dear friend Api Mahuika passed away a year or two ago.There were a number of submissions that concerned me and I just wanted to clarify from my point of view a number of matters. The first relates to clause 13 of the bill where there is an amendment which seems to have excited a lot of interest on the part of one group of submitters. Essentially clause 13 provides for the preservation of certain rights and accommodated matters and very importantly subclause (1) says that this legislation does not affect certain rights which are described in the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. Specifically certain sections are referred to and I'll briefly refer to those: section 18 which deals with the rights of owners of structures; section 21 which provides that certain proprietary rights of individuals or corporations are to continue; that very important section 26 which preserves the right of public access to the foreshore and seabed; section 27 which deals with the rights of navigation within the marine and coastal area; and finally section 28 which provides for fishing rights to be preserved.Then the clause says but section 28(1) … applies in respect of [the Ngāti Porou] moana—(a) as if it also stated that nothing in this Act … prevented the exercise of the relevant rights;". Then in subclause (1)(b) it says "subpart 5 of Part 2 of this Act"—and then there are those words in parentheses—"(which relates to customary fishing practices) or to any provision of this Act that relates to a wāhi tapu or wāhi tapu area." I'm sorry if this sounds rather tendentious but I wanted to particularly refer to those words which are in parentheses or brackets because those words were put in by means of clarification and yet some people are saying that it weakens the protections of commercial fishers within ngā rohe moana which is not correct. What is simply done there is to reflect the fact that the agreement between Ngāti Porou and the Crown referred to customary fishing practices and so it was necessary in paragraph (b) to refer not only to a wāhi tapu or wāhi tapu area but also to the issue of customary fishing practices. I still await comments from submitters. I've invited them to make further submissions to me if they like of what precisely amounts to a weakening by the inclusion of those words but I do not believe that the inclusion of those words amounts to a weakening of the commercial position at all.The second issue relates to Part 4 Subpart 2 dealing with wāhi tapu areas. There seems to be a suggestion that wāhi tapu areas could be defined over the entirety of ngā rohe moana and that they could operate so as to completely exclude commercial fishing or a substantial amount of commercial fishing. But Subpart 2 provides a very detailed procedure for the recognition of a wāhi tapu area. It goes without saying that a wāhi tapu area is not going to be the entirety of the moana or a large stretch; it is going to be a specific area determined after the procedures set out in Subpart 2 of Part 4 have been complied with to ensure that areas that truly are sacred are protected either permanently or for a relatively short period of time. But it's certainly not intended that through recognition of a wāhi tapu area huge tracts of the coastline or the seabed are going to be created so as to harm the interests of commercial fishers.The third issue which has excited some submitters relates to the provisions relating to customary fishing practices—Subpart 5 of Part 2. Again there's a very detailed procedure set out in the legislation picking up what was contained in the agreement on customary fishing practices. I'm not going to go through all those provisions but I refer the House to—and this can be dealt with in the committee stages when the bill comes back to the House for that part of the legislative process. But I am going to refer honourable members to clause 49 of the bill. What was included in there was subclause (3A) which provided that "regulations recommended by the Minister … must—(a) comply with the requirements of the deed of agreement; and (b)"—importantly—"support the purpose and principles of the Fisheries Act" and those very important purposes include the environmental purpose of the Fisheries Act.So in my opinion there are safeguards both in relation to customary fisheries and to wāhi tapu areas which if they're not complied with will be able to be reviewed by the courts. So what is set out here is a very detailed procedure both in relation to wāhi tapu establishment and also regulations for dealing with customary fishing practices and all the necessary safeguards are there to prevent any abuse were there to be abuse—such a suggestion would be strongly resisted by me.So this has been a very complex piece of work marrying the provisions of the deed of agreement between Ngāti Porou and the Crown into the new legislation and I want to commend the excellent work of the officials and the parliamentary drafts people in what really has been quite a complex and painstaking exercise. I look forward to seeing this legislation progress and I look forward to its passage through the House. It will be a great day for Ngāti Porou. I too commend the bill to the House."