Cullen Michael: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16965] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 What a thoroughly confused piece of extended piffle that was from the deputy leader of the National Party! First of all let me make it clear to him that new clause 2A was drafted in consultation with my colleagues in the Maori caucus committee and with— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Oh! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is even worse my goodness me! A brown face has had something to do with drafting the bill and that makes it totally bad according to the deputy leader of the National Party. Horror show! It is a nightmare and Friday the 13th all in one go for the poor old deputy leader of the National Party that Maori have had something to do with the bill. Of course National members are not racist on this bill at all! No no no! They just do not want anything to do with Maori being involved in it—that is all. 
Clause 2A was put to the New Zealand First members and they agreed to it. They agreed as part of another set of arrangements that were entered into the bill. So let us absolve Mr Jones of the blame for new clause 2A; the Government accepts full responsibility. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: We don’t believe you! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not care what the member believes. The member’s brain is something I do not want to explore for more than a few seconds. 
What the member does not seem to understand is that common law rights are those rights that existed at the time that the Crown assumed sovereignty. The Court of Appeal found that common law rights had not been removed by the Crown’s assertion of legal ownership of the foreshore and seabed. That was not judicial activism; that followed any number of overseas judgments in that area. That member needs to front up and say whether he believes there are common law rights or not. What he is really saying is that if those rights are held by Maori they should not be allowed to exist. That is what he is actually saying. 
He is totally wrong when he says that this bill enables only Maori to go to the court. Pakeha can go to the High Court for a declaration of customary usage rights. The only difference is Maori go to the Maori Land Court in relation to customary usage rights and the reason is that there are tikanga issues that the Maori Land Court has expertise in. Both Maori and Pakeha have the right to go to the High Court on an equal basis in terms of the issue of territorial customary rights.  
Gerry Brownlee 
: What is the cut-off?  
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The cut-off is what the law itself determines: the point at which the Crown assumed sovereignty. If those members do not like that then they are simply rejecting the entire jurisprudence on these matters not just here but in any other number of jurisdictions as well. 
This really emphasises how stupid the National Party is on this bill. It does not have an argument. National members are simply trying to wind up an issue around race to frighten people. And what confusion and contradiction there is! Other parties in the House claim we are taking everything away from Maori. The National Party claims we are giving everything to Maori. Georgina te Heuheu says we are taking everything away from Maori. The ACT party says it thinks there should be property rights but it does not think Maori should have any of them so it will oppose the bill on both grounds. And Metiria Turei exists in some kind of ethereal stratosphere; I have yet to understand what she is saying at all on the issue at this particular point. 
The Government’s position is clear: the Court of Appeal left us with a legal framework that would have led to results that were divisive and untenable from a public policy perspective—that is the transfer into private ownership of public foreshore and seabed. Firstly we reaffirm the Crown’s ownership of the public foreshore and seabed. Secondly we provide the mechanisms for the consideration of customary usage rights. Thirdly we provide the mechanism for redress where there might have been territorial customary rights established and to deal with the issue the member raises we place in statute the test that has to be applied by the court in the consideration of those applications. 
What bit of that can those members actually oppose in principle at all as opposed to trying to do an Orewa speech scratch-scratch job hoping somehow or other that people will think there is something in it? We need just listen to the media reports and just read the editorials; already they have nothing to say of any interest. Those members will bash their gums uselessly for some 15 to 20 hours to come saying nothing of any importance at all throughout this debate. They have nothing to contribute on this issue and they have not contributed to this issue at any stage. They have no argument of any substance do not understand the law do not understand the Court of Appeal judgment and do not understand the bill but that will not stop the National Party because it never has stopped it when it comes to issues of complexity.