Mapp Wayne: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17064] 
Sitting suspended from 6 pm to 7 pm 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 It is certainly true that National does recognise a place for customary rights. The deputy leader of the National Party set out the circumstances in which they should be granted. He said specifically that it should be through the process of treaty settlements. National has used that process in the past in the Ngai Tahu settlement.  
I want to turn to a particular point which is the provision in the bill that these customary rights are to be considered through the Maori Land Court. That is the vehicle that is supposed to determine whether customary rights are to be granted. I have to ask whether that is the right vehicle. The Maori Land Court was set up for very specific purposes. In fact I am aware that members of the New Zealand First Party know that in detail. The Maori Land Court was set up specifically to deal with Maori land thus essentially to deal with disputes between Maori and Maori as to who are landowners and who have various rights and more recently to deal with mandating issues under section 30. It is all well understood and accepted and that is precisely the purpose of the Maori Land Court.  
In this instance however—and the Government would say this itself—we are talking about the public estate for all New Zealanders; the foreshore and seabed owned by the Crown on behalf of all New Zealanders. National does not have any dispute with that proposition. We support it. So the question is whether a court that is set up essentially to deal with Maori issues as between Maori and Maori should then be vested with a general power to deal with matters between the wider public—of which Maori are a subset—and specific Maori issues. I say no it should not. That is not the right vehicle.  
If this is the intent of the Government in dealing with this issue then the right vehicle would have been the High Court. The reason for choosing the High Court is that it is the court that acts for and is available to all New Zealanders. We can see this in the processes set up in the various schedules in relation to the Maori Land Court. Only persons who have specific interests—and that primarily will be Maori—will in fact be able to appear before it. I guess realistically that that will also include district and regional councils. The general public is effectively excluded.  
So we say that at a fundamental and principled level—and this is not a comment about individual judges or anything of that nature—the Maori Land Court is simply the wrong court. If the Government was determined to go down that path it should have chosen the High Court. That is proven by the fact that only the High Court can deal with the territorial customary rights orders set out in Part 2 and there is a reason for that. It was recognised that the High Court had that broader general expertise and interest to deal with those issues. In some respects I think that the chair of the select committee acknowledges that fact. Similarly of course in terms of general customary rights orders under clause 61—the only one we have an example of apparently is the Auckland anniversary regatta as if that protection were actually needed—they would also be dealt with by the High Court. It seems to me that on a principled basis we should have a seamless jurisdiction for that kind of thing. The High Court as has been noted with its inherent jurisdiction and interest for all New Zealanders and with its particular expertise established in that regard should be the court for dealing with these matters—if one is to choose a judicial approach to these issues. It has the right expertise. Issues have been raised by members on the other side of the Chamber. What about the issues of tikanga Maori?