Ririnui Mita: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee 
Ririnui Mita: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17425] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) 
: 
 Kati kia ora tatou kei roto i te Whare. Kai te Heamana kai te Minita nga mema katoa tena koutou tena tatou katoa. 
Before I touch on the title of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill I will take this brief opportunity to acknowledge the quality of the information that the Minister has provided about this bill in the Committee stage although it is very difficult for members on this side of the Chamber to accept a lot of his explanations in terms of various parts of the bill. However that is the Government’s position and it is to be respected. 
What has not been acknowledged in the Chamber throughout this debate is the mistake the Maori Party has made in taking ownership over this particular bill. It is very important that in the closing stages of the Committee stage I stand in this Chamber and make comment about that. It is our premise that there is no way we can camouflage the issues in this bill by adding a Maori flavour to the title. The addition of “takutai moana” to the Foreshore and Seabed Act will just not sell it amongst Maori communities regardless of how the Maori Party members who have spoken to the bill have tried to sell it to this House and to the rest of Maoridom. 
The Labour Opposition believes that the more appropriate title for this bill would be the “Marine and Coastal Area (Foreshore and Seabed) Re-enactment Bill”. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I myself the man who is standing in this Chamber and speaking on behalf of the central North Island from the rohe of Mataatua Te Arawa and Takitimu would call it the “Te Ao Hurihuri Bill”—in other words the “Backward Flip Bill” the “Return to the Past Bill” because that is exactly what this bill is attempting to do. It stagnates Maori customary rights as of 1840 and by and large allows the authority of the Crown or of New Zealand to flourish and grow. That is why when I was asked the question earlier during the couple of days we have been debating this bill: “What’s the name of that bill again?” I said: “Well giving it a Maori flavour just doesn’t do it for me because to me kei te hoki whakamuri tatou [ 
we are going backwards 
]—in other words the “Te Ao Hurihuri Bill”; the one that takes us back into the Stone Age. 
A lot of examples have been given by various speakers in this Chamber about where we think the Maori Party has gone wrong but is refusing to acknowledge it. We are not here to speak about Part 4 but certainly some members of the Maori Party who do not admit to having or acknowledge they have law degrees have not read this bill properly and therefore do not understand the implications. As a result they do not wish to stand in this Chamber and affirm that they have got it right and maybe Hone Harawira is correct in challenging them on those particular points. 
For example let us take the burden of proof. The burden of proof still rests on Maoridom no matter how it is worded in this bill. Yes those rights that have not been extinguished by the Crown will remain but the Crown can prove that over 75 percent of the coastline of Aotearoa is not subject to protected customary rights because those rights have been extinguished. I will give the Committee an example. In Tauranga in the Bay of Plenty Ngati Rangi Ngati Ranginui and Ngati Pukenga had our customary rights extinguished in the period between 1840 and 1865 by way of raupatu and the Crown can prove that. Actually we are having a difficult job proving that it did not do that. The rest of the country accepts it and previous Governments have accepted it but as we are negotiating our way through these issues we are having difficulty in proving that the Crown acted illegally in our interests. 
So when a Maori Party member stands in the House and says the burden of proof is on the Crown I have to tell that member to get his or her head out of the sand and come back to earth. The Crown has no difficulty whatsoever in proving that rights in certain areas of the country have been extinguished. It is the same with Te Arawa and the return of the Te Arawa lakes. Te Arawa had to prove that they not only had had ownership pre-1992 but also had had ownership in the period between 1840 and whenever it was. It was a very difficult and costly exercise for them to go through. I remind Maori Party members—and Hone Harawira whom they refuse to name has attempted to tell them—that they have got it wrong. When they say to make no bones about the fact that this bill is their bill well I hope they can stand up without conscience in the Maori community and say: “Yes we still take ownership of it.” even though those Maori communities will have to prove they have a customary interest in their particular areas. 
Maybe the member Rahui Katene will tell the people from where she comes at the top of the South Island that they do not have to prove they had a customary right and that they do not have to prove that those customary rights were extinguished—because they were. They were. The Crown is currently in negotiations with her people now to compensate them for the loss of those rights. What is it about that that those people do not understand? Members can put all the nice language and legal jargon they like into these bills but Maori still have to front up in court to prove their case. What do those members not understand about that? The Crown has no difficulty in turning up to prove that those rights have been extinguished; sometimes these debates can get up to a level where Maori can practically lose interest in them. 
I think my colleague Kelvin Davis gave some examples of how this issue will affect Maori as the rubber hits the road in their communities. Why would any Maori group make an application for the recognition of customary rights to collect hangi stones? Why would they? I had an issue with that in 2004 because it was raised then. Why would any Maori make an application to the High Court for the recognition of customary rights so they can launch a waka? I had an issue with that in 2004; I have an issue with that now. Maori Party members had an issue with it back then but they have refused to admit to that now. Those members should show some consistency. They should be true to their beliefs and stand up and speak up. They should not do backward flips and try to convince our people that this bill is a good thing because it is not. 
There are actually no changes in the bill. There are changes in the words but the substance of the bill in terms of the ability of Maori to prove customary rights—I will use those words again: prove customary rights—means that that is still very very difficult. The Court of Appeal said that so what is it about that that those members do not understand? The entire South Island was subject to confiscation and all those rights were lost. Ngai Tahu have spent decades on trying to have those rights reinstated. What is it about the member from Te Tai Tonga and her legal background that she cannot accept or understand that? I have people in the Mataatua and Te Arawa rohe who have not had the privilege or the type of education that that member has had—in fact they have struggled with literacy—but they can work that one out. Every time they go to the beach to get pipis they know that between them they can get one bucket. They know that when they go and dive for kina they can get one bag. They understand that even though the codification of those rights totally loses them. That is why I say to the member that when Te Ao Maori is codified Te Ao Maori is removed from the Maori people. Members need to understand that. When tikanga is codified it does not matter who makes the decision or who gives the advice; that is the legal precedent and that is the end of it. What do they not understand about that? I am concerned that that member stands in this Chamber and tries to pull the wool over our eyes and the eyes of the rest of Maoridom in saying this bill is good for them when Te Ao Maori as they know it is slowly disappearing. What is it about that that she will not accept? I had difficulty accepting her arguments in the Chamber this afternoon. 
I do not often agree with Hone Harawira. Actually I think he is a bit flighty and I have told him that many times. But he touched all the right buttons today and I have difficulty disproving him. 
As the curtain closes on this particular debate I wish I had a lot more time to speak because there are other members I would like to address such as my whanaunga over there from Ngati Awa. What will my cousin say to them when he goes back and tells them he voted for this bill? Will he say there is nothing in it for Maori but that they will get to go to court? Will he say that it will cost $200000 plus their lawyers’ fees but they will come away with nothing because they will not be able to meet the test of the burden of proof? As to all those rights that they may say the Crown confiscated—well the Crown has plenty of evidence to prove that those rights were extinguished. 
That is my contribution to this debate. I am very disappointed. I have sat quietly and listened to members make their contributions but I am very disappointed at the level of ignorance that I have heard in the Chamber today. This is a very simple issue. This is about us about Maori people. This is about our customary rights but the codification of those rights changes them. There is nothing wrong with going to court and arguing our case but when tikanga manaakitanga and all those areas that we hold valuable are codified then they are no longer ours. Kia ora.