Mahuta Nanaia: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mahuta Nanaia: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17033] 
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 All I can say to the member preceding me is that she should read the fine print. If she goes on to read clause 6 “Right of access” she will see the specified limits in new subclauses (3) and (4). She has raised a whole lot of issues about hidden secret access agreements. The limits are not secret. They are upfront in those subclauses. If she reads the clause she will see that access is granted to all New Zealanders to be able to go to the beaches. However the fine print in the subclauses sets out justified limitations in terms of that access. So it is no secret. It is right there in the bill. Clauses 6 and 7 are really the points of agreement that all New Zealanders Maori and Pakeha came to: that we should all have access to our beaches and that navigational rights should be protected. That is what clauses 6 and 7 are about.  
One of the members spoke earlier about new clause 7A “Existing fishing rights preserved”. The point about new clause 7A is that it makes it absolutely clear that all the issues concerning fish under other bits of legislation still stand. Nothing in this bill affects that.  
The substantial part of my small contribution on this part relates to clause 11—and the point was made by John Carter under subclause (1). Clause 11 is the clause that for many submitters provided a bit of tension. It is worth reading out: “On and from the commencement of this Act the full legal and beneficial ownership of the public foreshore and seabed is vested in the Crown so that the public foreshore and seabed is held by the Crown as its absolute property.” The submissions contain views that this should not be the case. However again—I made the point earlier in the debate——the natural extension of that argument is that the Crown would not be able to uphold any fiduciary obligation to any citizen in New Zealand including Maori. It follows therefore that this is a necessary part.  
This is not the first time Parliament has addressed the issue. In fact in the first reading debate Dail Jones raised the issue that the Foreshore and Seabed Endowment Revesting Act actually attempted to do this but it did not do it properly. He said at the time that no Maori member participated in that debate. I went through the contributions referring also to the submissions on the bill. Notably three Maori groups made a submission on the Foreshore and Seabed Endowment Revesting Bill: the New Zealand Maori Council Awaroa ki Manuka and the Huakina Development Trust. All the submissions from those Maori groups actually agreed with Crown ownership. However they said that then sets up the opportunity for Maori to legitimately argue their treaty claims or treaty issues. There was some reflection in their submissions on the hope that at some point an opportunity would arise whereby the Government would recognise their customary interests in full and see the return perhaps of parts of their tribal domain where they exercised their customary interests. Notably Awaroa ki Manuka and the Huakina Development Trust raised those types of issues.  
So clause 11 is an important clause. It is probably the most lucid part of this bill. We all need to be clear about why there is provision for other parts in recognition of customary rights. Basically subclauses (2) and (3) make it important to ensure that if one is going to have full legal and beneficial ownership in the Crown one must make provision for Maori customary rights. It has long been my view that vesting ownership in the Crown would enable the radical title of the Crown to coexist with a native customary title in accordance with tikanga Maori. That has long been my view. Since this debate has emerged my thinking on that has developed further. This part contains a number of important clauses that affect Maori  
In finishing my small contribution I refer to new clause 12 “Public foreshore and seabed not to be alienated”. I think that is a clear affirmation of the Government’s intent and it is a good part of the legislation.