Harawira Hone: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Harawira Hone: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17328] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Independent—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairman. Tena koutou katoa e te Whare. As I turn to Part 3 of this Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill I cannot help but notice how much has been made of the Maori Party statement yesterday—and I quote Rahui Katene the speaker from the Maori Party—“This bill is in the House on our initiative. Make no bones about it this is a Maori Party bill. … and we are pleased to stand here in support …”. As I turn to aspects outlined in Part 3 I cannot help but focus Maori people’s attention on clauses that will impact dramatically and adversely on Maori rights to the foreshore and seabed and ask why on earth the Maori Party is saying now this is a Maori Party bill when just a few days ago Te Ururoa Flavell when asked who was running the timetable said National was. When he was asked who wrote the bill he said National did. When he was asked whose bill it was he said it was National’s. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This afternoon I accommodated the member from the north’s wish to speak to the Chamber as he had limited opportunities or had not necessarily taken those opportunities. If you are listening to the discussion at the moment Mr Chairperson you will hear that it is centred very much on the discussion that has already been put out on the part prior to this one—namely Part 2. Similar statements have been made and there has been no discussion in respect of this particular part. I ask whether you could draw us back. Although we have had a reference to Part 3 the substance of the discussion has been nothing to do with Part 3. I ask whether you would take some care to listen out for that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: In relation to relevance it is the prerogative of the Chair to rule. I have heard salient parts of this speech at least twice before. But the member has taken the call and whether he gets a second call will depend on his performance through his first call. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Thank you Mr Chair. As I highlight just some of the clauses in Part 3 of this bill and the Maori Party support for those clauses I want Maori people to be constantly asking themselves why on earth the Maori Party would say “Make no bones about it this is a Maori Party bill. … and we are pleased to stand here in support …”. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am aware that there has been a change of delegation but a Chairperson is still here. I have just made a point of order in respect of the issue of relevance to this particular part of the bill. There has been no reference back to Part 3 other than to mention Part 3 with no reference to the substance. Mr Chair I am not sure how you will refer to this but the Chair who held the position previously said he would keep note of the relevance to this particular part and unfortunately the situation has not changed too much. Can I ask whether you can give some clarity around that please? 
Hon David Parker 
: I suggest that that complaint is hardly fair. The speaker Hone Harawira effectively has just repeated the sentence he was delivering before he was interrupted and he has not yet had the opportunity to make reference to a specific clause in the bill—which I have no doubt he will eventually do. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I tell members that I am delighted to hear the word “fairness” used in this Chamber; I am not sure that fairness has always been the rule. But I heard the point of order made by the previous Chair who said he was listening to the presentation with interest—as I am—and the Chair would make a judgment on whether the member got a second call based on the relevance of the first call. Therefore the sanction was clearly laid out to the member speaking and to all members in the debate that if members were not relevant to the section then they might get the blind stare from the Chair—in other words no further calls. In the interests of debate I think that the honourable member Hone Harawira is entitled to continue with his presentation and at the end of it we will make a judgment as to whether the member has been relevant. That will then determine whether a second call is given should the member wish to take one. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Does the Maori Party know that under Part 3 of this bill a protected customary right is a right that has been exercised since 1840 continues to be exercised in a particular part of the common marine and coastal area in accordance with tikanga and is not already extinguished as a matter of law? If the Maori Party does in fact know this is it because this clause was either included at that party’s request or perhaps even written by the party? Is that why the Maori Party is saying: “Make no bones about it this is a Maori Party bill. … and we are pleased to stand here in support …”? 
Does the Maori Party know that under Part 3 of this bill the scope effect and limitations of protected Maori customary rights are defined and overseen entirely by Government Government statutes and the courts and that whanau hapu and iwi have no role in that process? Is that what the Maori Party means when it talks about rangatiratanga? 
Does the Maori Party know that under Part 3 of this bill the Minister of Conservation has the right to impose controls including any terms conditions or restrictions that the Minister sees fit on the exercise of protected Maori customary rights? If the Maori Party does in fact know this is it because this clause was included at the party’s request or perhaps even written by the party and is that why the Maori Party is happy to say: “Make no bones about it this is a Maori Party bill. … and we are pleased to stand here in support …”? 
Does the Maori Party know that under Part 3 of this bill Maori must hold the specified area in accordance with tikanga and must have exclusively used and occupied the specified area from 1840 to the present day without substantial interruption? If the Maori Party does in fact know this is it because this clause was included at the party’s request or was perhaps even written by the party or did it simply transfer the clause from Labour’s hated 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act across to this hated 2011 bill? 
Does the Maori Party know that under clause 49(2) in Part 3 of this bill supposedly “hapu means a hapu listed in the constitutional documents of an iwi …” and “iwi means an iwi listed in schedule 4 of the Maori Fisheries Act 2004.”? Is the granting of authority to the Crown to determine Maori entities what the Maori Party means when it talks about rangatiratanga? 
Does the Maori Party know that under Part 3 of this bill a protected customary right does not affect the granting of a coastal permit under the resource—