Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17127] 
Tuesday 16 November 2004 
( 
continued on Thursday 18 November 2004 
) 
Foreshore and Seabed Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 6Provisions relating to public foreshore and seabed register recognition agreements and other matters (  
continued 
)  
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I shall make a very brief extension to what I was saying last night just to indicate to the Committee that on Supplementary Order Paper 306 my colleague Helen Duncan in particular Metiria Turei and also Dr Wayne Mapp have raised with me the issue in relation to the Bayswater Marina. The Supplementary Order Paper in that respect deals with that particular issue. It is narrowly cast to make sure it does not get a lot of other things into the net that I think the select committee itself was clear should not be brought into the net in that case. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I shall deal with two issues in this part. The first issue I will deal with is in relation to North Shore City. 
It became evident in the select committee some weeks ago that there was an enormous risk that North Shore City would be denied the fruits of the results of the High Court decision. The facts are these. Bayswater Marina was established 10 years ago. At that time access provisions were done by Resource Management Act consents. In recent years there has been an ongoing battle I guess between the city and the marina over a whole range of things. That culminated in litigation over the marginal strip. North Shore City acting on behalf of the residents particularly the Ngataringa Bay Society won a case that yes there shall be a marginal strip 20 metres wide and there was a very very fully argued judgment in the High Court to that effect. That went on appeal to the Court of Appeal. 
Then the Government puts out its Foreshore and Seabed Bill and that decision has stayed. But the legislation would have had the effect of cutting right across the decision of the High Court with no other remedy. The whole case of the Government in relation to this bill is that it is the alternative remedy to the Ngati Apa case. Whether or not people accept that that is the Government’s argument. In the North Shore instance however the bill would simply cut across the decision and there would be no remedy. Effectively the Government was saying that the Bayswater Marina had won by legislative fiat. Public access would not have been as certain because Resource Management Act consents are not the same as marginal strips. 
That seemed to me to be wrong. I dealt with that issue extensively at the select committee and Dail Jones in particular would know that. I have spoken at length to the North Shore City Council and I know that it has made long and urgent representations. So I do want to acknowledge that finally that issue has been recognised—only yesterday I might add—by Supplementary Order Paper 306. Unfortunately of course that would have been completely unnecessary if this matter had been dealt with properly at the outset. Alternatively if this bill had never existed this issue would never have arisen. So in many ways the Supplementary Order Paper is there because of the Government’s own negligence in relation to this matter. At best it is fixing up its own negligence. 
Frankly I am not sure whether I need to give any credit to New Zealand First in relation to this issue. Its members will have their own views. Certainly I know that the mayor of North Shore City acting on behalf of the residents and the deputy mayor and Councillor Darby in particular have gone to enormous efforts with the Government to have what would have been an enormously serious anomaly removed. What will happen now as I understand it is that the cases will proceed and one way or the other one of the two parties will win. The Court of Appeal will decide whether the North Shore City Council or Bayswater Marina will win. That is of course a reasonable outcome. As I say unlike the rest of the bill which is the Government’s alleged response to the NgatiApa case this aspect of it would simply have had a nugatory effect without the Supplementary Order Paper. So I do acknowledge that point. 
The second broader point in Part 6 is of course about Tainui. We all know that and I know that in particular as some people may well imagine. Clause 115A allows those treaty settlements. This is the whole point I say to New Zealand First. It says it has guaranteed Crown ownership on behalf of all New Zealanders. Right at the very time this bill is in the House the Government is negotiating with Tainui and others up and down this country. I predict that it will transfer in the same manner as with the Rotorua lakes to those claimants the fee simple—and I want to be very clear about that—to the West Coast harbours and perhaps other parts of New Zealand. 
The whole idea of Crown ownership being guaranteed is shot through with that exception. We on this side of the House know that that is the deal the Government has struck with its own Maori caucus. That is why those members are coming down here and meekly voting for the legislation. We will be very interested indeed to see what Nanaia Mahuta’s vote on this legislation is. One wonders whether that was how her vote was procured as well. 
This is a very important issue. The trouble is that it is double-dealing. At the very time that the Government says it is guaranteeing Crown ownership it is doing that deal behind closed doors to sell off Government ownership. Its claim will be of course that it is a separate Act of Parliament. We know that it will just trot across to the Green Party the Maori Party and possibly even New Zealand First to get support for that kind of deal. National has drawn a line in the sand. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 It is refreshing that the National Party will support this bill. The National Party will be supporting the Government’s and New Zealand First’s amendment to clause 117 so we will be getting National Party support for this legislation—at least for part of it. It is unfortunate that the National Party did not support the moves to protect reclamations and suchlike. It is unfortunate that the National Party could not support the clause that vested ownership of the foreshore and seabed in the Crown. What is the difference between supporting the Bayswater Marina situation and opposing the foreshore and seabed belonging to the Crown? The logic fails me entirely. The National Party could have voted for the clauses that did away with the amendment to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act and the 1991 legislation but no it voted against all those clauses. It is good to see that we are getting the National Party to have some slight degree of sense. 
New Zealand First is delighted with this provision. We were informed on only 16 November by the North Shore City Council that something needed to be done and today 18 November amending legislation is being passed through the House with the initial support of New Zealand First to make sure it happened. Up until now the National Party has voted against every provision of this bill and we are only too delighted to help out the court process which is being allowed to continue in this case. 
Of course the major aspect of this bill for New Zealand First is clause 112. It never occurred to the National Party at any stage that if clause 112 went through in its initial form it would have allowed the Government secretly to enter into any type of agreement with anyone and no one would ever have known what had happened in that decision. There could have been an arrangement between the Government and any person any Maori tribe or whatever whanau hapu or iwi with regard to the foreshore and seabed and no one would have known the outcome of it. Fortunately the New Zealand Law Society’s submission indicated that that issue needed to be resolved and New Zealand First has taken up that suggestion which we would expect the National Party to support. Will the National Party support the New Zealand First amendment or new clause 112 which makes it clear that any agreement entered into between the Government and whanau hapu or tribe must be registered in the High Court? There must be an application and affidavits in support and the High Court is required to check off the requirements of section 28 to make sure that they have been fulfilled so that the matter is open and above board for the protection of shall we say European New Zealanders but also Maori New Zealanders who then can see what other tribes have been doing. 
As far as Dr Wayne Mapp’s comment about clause 115A is concerned the effect of this legislation is that in any treaty settlement there will be two pieces of legislation—one for the treaty settlement and one for any transfer of the foreshore and seabed. Of course nothing at law or in parliamentary practice or in constitutional practice prevents a Government from passing a bill that allows the Government to do anything it likes including transferring ownership of land. [ 
Interruption 
] The previous National Government did that time and time again for Taupo. National members just do not understand the constitutional requirements and the situation in New Zealand. At any time a Government can sell anything. The National Government did that in the 1990s the Labour Government did it in the 1980s and New Zealand First is making sure by means of clause 12 that such issues must come before Parliament for a decision to be made rather than a Nick Smith hocking off and flogging off parts of the country as his National Party did when it was in office in the 1990s. This bill clause 12 in particular makes it clear that any sale of foreshore and seabed land must come before Parliament—as Larry Baldock has indicated as well. In terms of clause 12 Parliament must enact a special separate Act on anything to do with the foreshore and seabed—including any settlement provision. That is an extra requirement of this legislation—two pieces of legislation. There will not be the secret type of deal that the National Party Government used to get up to then rush one set of legislation through the House. 
I thought Dr Wayne Mapp understood this matter. It was told to him time and time again in the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee that a Government— 
Brent Catchpole 
: It’s too difficult for him. 
DAIL JONES 
: It is too difficult for Dr Wayne Mapp to understand. He was informed time and time again that this bill requires two sets of legislation to give effect to a treaty settlement that involves the foreshore and seabed. At law constitutionally a Government can do anything it likes provided that it passes the measure through Parliament. That is the right of a Government. No Act can bind a subsequent Government. That is why one has to vote for New Zealand First—to make sure that what used to happen does not happen in the future. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 We have just seen another expression of why the New Zealand First Party should be thoroughly ashamed of itself. This legislation is being passed through Parliament today only because of the support of that party. I think Michael Cullen is chuckling to himself because he knows he has duped New Zealand First. We heard yesterday in the debate on Part 5 that United Future had been duped. Larry Baldock made the point that he had had an undertaking from the Government that the review of the Resource Management Act would not intrude into Part 2 and he was somewhat aghast when he found that this measure is intruding into a review of Part 2. He felt duped and so he should. The funny thing is that Winston Peters and his merry band have not realised they have been duped. They are complicit in having this bad legislation rammed through Parliament and do not realise what they have agreed to. That has been obvious from all the contributions we have had from the members of that party. 
I acknowledge the efforts of “Captain Wayne Mapp” in the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee. Certainly with regard to the Bayswater Marina he put up a valiant argument on behalf of his constituents. But of course that is just one small example of where due process has been utterly denied by this arrogant legislation. The whole of the legislation is all about riding roughshod over due process. That is one of the worst aspects of it. Indeed it will be the basis of a new round of grievance that we will see within Maoridom triggered from this legislation. From the day it is passed and gets its royal assent be it today or tomorrow there will be a legitimate new grievance in this country because of this Government’s failure to follow due process. That is what we have seen in respect of the Bayswater Marina. With one stroke this bill effectively takes away rights that were won in court—strips them away from the party that was to benefit. 
But when we look at Part 6 we see that it is where all the regulations are. With all legislation we have to appreciate that the devil is in the detail. We are going to have all these new regimes. We will have public foreshore and seabed reserves and of course they will all come with their own little management plans. We will have Department of Conservation officers up and down the country preparing little management plans.  
Hon Richard Prebble 
: They will love it. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: They will. It will be like the Department of Conservation is on steroids. Its staff love these new activities where they can fiddle. It is just unbelievable. Of course the Minister of Conservation is becoming tsar-like in his powers in this country. It is quite extraordinary. He assumes the sorts of absolute powers of the tsar as he takes over more and more of this country. As well as being tsarist the department is also Stalinist with its heavy emphasis on rules regulations and control. It is extraordinarily bad legislation. 
I draw the Committee’s attention to clause 114 where we see some of the detail of the new regulations and rules—another layer that we can expect. What has not been mentioned in this debate to date is the impost that this legislation will be on local government. It is crumbling under the burden of all these additional tasks and the demands for endless consultation. It is under incredible strain. The Government blithely legislates but where is the rubber going to hit the road? It will be at the local government level. It has responsibility for administering the Resource Management Act. We have another layer of these sorts of nebulous spiritual references which local government—with hearings and consultations—will be drawn into and involved with. Communities up and down the country will realise very soon that this legislation is an absolute crock of the proverbial. 
Michael Cullen sits there and smiles and smirks. He is quite self-assured that he has duped United Future and New Zealand First. He will get this legislation through Parliament it seems but that does not make it good legislation. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to address some comments to clause 112 which is the clause that allows for agreements directly between the Minister and claimants—we assume Maori groups—who are seeking a territorial customary right under the court process. 
The bill in the form it was introduced and referred to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee contained a clause 112 of about five or six lines that provided quite wide scope for Ministers—it did not identify which ones—to “enter into an agreement with a group to recognise that but for the vesting of the full legal and beneficial ownership of the public foreshore and seabed in the Crown by section 11 that group would have held territorial customary rights over a specified area of the public foreshore and seabed.” Understandably this provision caused a great deal of concern because it raised the issue of backroom deals whereby the Government in order to try to calm down many of the objections to this legislation might dish out lollipops to some extent to try to gain back favour amongst particularly the Maori community. 
I think many people have called for Maori to have their day in court over this issue. Although many people in the land do not necessarily believe that Maori should have the right to foreshore and seabed title they have been upset by the cutting across of due process which would have enabled Maori to go to court to check it out. Clause 112 was a complete contradiction to that. Rather than their being given the right to go to court they would have the right to go to the Minister and perhaps seek a backroom deal. It is good to see that there is an amendment that makes it a lot more transparent. I do not think it goes the whole way to answer some of the critics but it makes some improvement. 
But I want to say first of all that although many have called for Maori to have their day in court I believe that what ought to have happened in the very beginning was that the Crown should have had its day in court. When the Court of Appeal made its decision it ought to have been the Crown first of all that went off to the Privy Council to have that decision tested thoroughly at the highest court in the land at that particular time. The ruling of the Court of Appeal that overturned the long-held understanding under the Ninety Mile Beach case would have been tested out thoroughly and then the Government having established that fact clearly in law could have proceeded to introduce legislation if it needed based upon the fact that everyone had had his or her day in court. Really the Crown was the one that should have led that case.  
 Many of us were under the impression or at least I was that the appeal by Port Marlborough to the Privy Council was going to give some satisfaction in that regard until during the select committee I learnt that its basis for appeal to the Privy Council was not as clear as many had understood it to be and that it would test only a small part of the Court of Appeal decision. Had that appeal gone to the Privy Council and a decision been made it still would have left some unanswered questions. Many submitters to the select committee urged the committee to wait until 15 or 16 November when the first hearing was to be held—and it possibly would have been 6 weeks after that before any ruling was given—but then we found even before we got to 15 or 16 November that Port Marlborough had withdrawn its application to the Privy Council. 
So these questions will never be answered. I think one of the concerns about the legislation is that there are some unresolved questions around the country that people will not get satisfaction over and they will therefore make up their own minds and draw their own conclusions about the justice of this issue. I think that is regrettable. This issue is important. We are seeing already as was mentioned in the news this morning that people are taking crazy action over this legislation. United Future is very concerned that because of the process some people may do some very foolish things around this country that cause all of us to suffer as a result. The only way to have really dealt with this issue was to have taken some more time to make sure that everybody—or at least as many people as possible—was on board with the real facts. I think that the case going to the Privy Council would have helped that process. 
However we are faced with this legislation today. We see that the Minister’s amendments that have been put before us make some improvement to clause 112 whereby at least there will be some transparency. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I want to expose some of the real hidden agenda in Part 6. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: You will need an extension of time—there’s so much of it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: There is so much of it as Richard Prebble quite rightly says; there is a huge amount. The first issue I want to draw attention to is the cunning little exercise from Dr Cullen in respect of the Resource Management Act and the issue of ancestral connection orders. The New Zealand First Party quite rightly has sympathised with this side of the House in respect of reform of the Resource Management Act and therefore it was not prepared to be part of the nonsense provisions in the original bill that would have given even more leverage to iwi. So those provisions have been dropped except we are now told they are to be rolled out in a resource management amendment bill to be introduced next month—and no doubt to be supported by the United Future Party. This is the sort of “a-b” game that is going on in this Parliament between New Zealand First the Greens and United Future by which Labour is able to get its wicked way in terms of legislation that will take New Zealand backwards. 
We also had the contribution from Dail Jones and he was quite correct when he said we cannot bind a future Parliament. The Government can quite rightly enter into any treaty settlement it seeks and it must come back and legislate. 
Darren Hughes 
: Is that right or wrong? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is quite correct. But then why on earth I ask the member for Otaki do we need these provisions which are an invitation to the Government to go down this road? I will say why. It is because this Government has done a sneaky deal. On the one hand it is able to put hand on heart and say all the foreshore and seabed are going to be vested in the Crown but there are these sneaky little invitation clauses that will— 
Darren Hughes 
: We’re not like that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well Government members are not like that! I guess we have to take their word like we take John Tamihere’s word about his not taking golden handshakes. That is the full integrity that we have from members of the Labour Party! They have a track record of saying one thing and doing the opposite and we see so much of it in this bill. I simply ask Mr Darren Hughes whether he can give me an absolute reassurance that there will be no deals with Tainui in respect of the harbours on the west coast of the North Island. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: We have scarcely begun negotiations yet. 
Darren Hughes 
: What did the High Court judge say about this man? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr Darren Hughes simply gets into some completely irrelevant issue and Dr Cullen is even more revealing in his out of order interjection. But he is even more revealing when he says it is all subject to negotiation. Does that give New Zealanders great reassurance that the foreshore and seabed will be vested in the Crown? All we get from Dr Cullen is that it is all open to negotiation. We know indeed the route that we are heading down in that respect because these provisions are the entrée for the transfer to respective iwi of those harbours and significant areas of foreshore and seabed. 
I also want to deal with the issues around the bureaucratic nonsense. My greatest frustration in this debate is the lack of speeches that have been focused on what is a really sensible set of legislation under which New Zealand manages its foreshore and seabed in the interests of all New Zealanders. We have not had anything of that sort from this Government. All we have had is slick political deals that are designed to solve a political problem. In fact what we see in this Part 6—and it really does come into focus in it—is the absolute mess we are creating in the law in respect of the management of the foreshore and seabed. We will have these new foreshore reserves. They were publicly announced on only Tuesday of this week but they will be law by the end of today. Then we are to have under the Resource Management Act a different set of plans. I simply ask why for goodness’ sake we would want to have a foreshore reserve alongside marine reserves alongside taiapure reserves and alongside mataitai reserves as well as having another set of plans under the Resource Management Act that are required by law. What sort of mishmash mess are we creating in terms of sensible management of our foreshore and seabed? This part will create a huge challenge for a future Government to clean up the confused laws we have created for the management of our foreshore. 
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 I want to take a call on Part 6 and comment on a couple of points—firstly in respect of some issues raised by the member who has just spoken. There has been some concern throughout the whole debate that a foreshore and seabed reserve in itself could prevent a marine reserve or a mataitai but in fact if a management committee within its management plan decided it wanted a marine reserve or a mataitai then under this part of the legislation it could indeed provide for and apply for these.  
I say to the speaker before me that after the whole process of establishing our foreshore and seabed reserves has been gone through a management committee that wanted a marine reserve could itself make an application under the Marine Reserves Act to redesignate its reserve as a marine reserve. I think it could achieve aims that are not too different from those of all New Zealanders in terms of protecting the marine biodiversity of our foreshores and seas. So it is all possible. The point here is that it is a decision that can be made entirely within the foreshore and seabed reservations provided for in this bill. I think it is a bit of game-playing to say it cannot happen because it can. It is all within the possibility of the decision making of the management board and the management plan. We should embrace the kind of ability that restores decision making back to local peoples and their communities—local decisions made by local peoples and their communities. That is important.  
The clause in Part 6 that I want to talk to in particular is clause 115 which will be no surprise to members. It is worth reading. The proposed new heading is “Provision saving Maori reservations”. The clause has some direct relevance to areas along the Manukau Harbour and in particular to Whatapaka Marae. Subclause (1) states: “This section applies if before the commencement of this section any land that is in the public foreshore and seabed has been set apart as Maori reservation—(a) by the Chief Executive of Te Puni Kokiri under section 338 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993: (b) on application of the Minister of Maori Affairs under section 339 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993: (c) upon the express recommendation of the Maori Land Court under section 340. (1A) A Maori reservation referred to in subsection (1) must be treated as if it were a specified freehold interest for so long as it is set apart under section 338 or section 339 or section 340 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993.”  
Within the clarification of that there is a place along the Manukau Harbour—a place called Whatapaka Marae. Prior to the introduction of this bill that marae was able to extend its reservation out into the Manukau Harbour. That happened after quite an extensive tribunal hearing for the Manukau Harbour following the Foreshore and Seabed Endowment Revesting Act. It enabled the marae to extend its reservation in order to look after its flounder and oyster beds. Kaitiaki from the marae ensure—they do not patrol—that the resources there are continually replenishing and that there are enough to feed the marae. All types of fishermen go into the reserve—Maori Pakeha whoever. The point is that when it comes to regulating to ensure that the resources are continually replenishing and that people are respecting the values of the marae a couple of the marae kaitiaki go out and say: “Not today mate.”  and everybody knows why—it is not a good time; there are not enough flounders around just then. It is pretty well respected. If people would like to go out to that marae and have a look at how it actually happens they will see that a lot of cooperation exists amongst all peoples in the area Maori and Pakeha alike and that they are able to manage what is happening in the reserve. The reserve goes into the Manukau Harbour quite well in fact.  
So again I think that clause 115 is a clause that will be embraced certainly in terms of the particular example I have cited. I would like to comment on the origin of that because there has been some lack of historical recollection in the Committee about these types of issues. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The real purpose of this bill is finally revealed in clause 112. This is the clause that accepts there will be cases where this bill confiscates title and rights from Maori. It acknowledges that this bill is a confiscation and then it attempts to provide some redress for that confiscation. Subclause (1) states: “but for the vesting of the full legal and beneficial ownership of the public foreshore and seabed in the Crown … that group … would have had a claim for territorial customary rights over a specified area …”. The redress that it provides is a negotiation process at the discretion of the Crown with no requirement for any outcome no requirement for any redress but there is a negotiation process.  
But worse than that there is no requirement for any public notification of who is being negotiated with so the Crown can simply talk to the largest group in the area conduct a private negotiation with them and reach a conclusion. There are to be no ancestral connection orders to identify which iwi and hapu have an interest in particular areas of coast. We have seen already from the treaty settlement process that there are often smaller hapu who are left out of the process and the agreements are made without their participation or inclusion. These negotiations may go on without involving all possible claimants. People may wake up the next morning to find that an area of the coast in which they believe they have a very strong interest is subject to a territorial customary rights agreement between somebody else and the Crown. It is particularly likely in areas of—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I was trying to listen to the member and there was a very loud— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why would you want to? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I think it is very offensive for the leader of the New Zealand First Party to come over and stand just behind me and then hold a loud conversation with Mr— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I did not. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Yes the member did. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I can deal with this. It is a longstanding convention in the Chamber—Speaker’s ruling 57/5—and [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Jones that I am on my feet. 
Dail Jones 
: I wanted to apologise. It was me who was doing the talking. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is understood that there is no comment in that part of the Chamber because of the muffling effect it has on the microphones. I notice that the member has desisted and I thank him for that. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: The Green Party amendment to this clause tries to address this situation. It is in the name of Metiria Turei and it requires notification to and consultation with other potentially interested parties that these negotiations are going on so that they may register their interest and I commend the amendment to the Committee.  
The second amendment removes the requirement to go back to the court in order to have these agreements ordered by the court. There is no particular reason to add this requirement. It causes delay and cost after the agreement has been reached when there has already been a negotiated process and there is already requirement elsewhere that a copy of the agreement should be served on other interested parties Ministers and local authorities. There is no particular reason why the applicant should have to go back to the court to get it all ordered there. All of this of course could have been— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why go to court? Why have the costs of going to court?  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: This is an entirely different situation from an applicant going to court under the original situation—to the Maori Land Court. This is after the Crown has taken away that right and reached a negotiated agreement for something else. One does not at that stage apply to the court to settle something that has already been settled. All of that of course could have been avoided had the Greens’ policy of recognising Maori underlying customary ownership been adopted with an amendment to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act that where customary title was found it could not be turned into freehold saleable title and that public access would be negotiated on that title. Every Maori leader whom I have spoken to about this bill was in favour of that outcome and was prepared to accept it.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Name one. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: I can name lots of them. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I want to make some comments on this part. To start with I will make a couple of observations on the comments made by Dail Jones. He raved on about the National Government selling things off in the 1990s but of course he failed to say that quite a lot of New Zealand assets started being sold off in the 1980s when Labour was in power. But having said that I just do not know how any of that is relevant to now because quite frankly at that point there was not a Government saying to the public of New Zealand: “Don’t you worry. You’ve got ownership of the foreshore and seabed through Crown ownership and you have it in perpetuity.” That provision was not around at that earlier time so I do not see the relevance of the member’s remarks.  
I refer now to clause 112. Despite the comments of Larry Baldock and the fact that he felt heartened because there have been some amendments to that clause it is clearly still open to the kind of negotiation that the public of New Zealand have grown weary of—the backroom stuff and deals going on. It is still open to the charge of backroom dealing. Quite frankly I am surprised that Mr Peters supports this. I thought that he did not like this kind of carry-on either where things are done behind closed doors. If that is not the case maybe he will explain it to me but on the face of it that is how it looks to me. Under clause 112 the Attorney-General—whoever that might be; I have to hope it will be someone else—and the Minister of Maori Affairs may enter into an agreement. So all that kind of carry-on goes on behind closed doors. If they come to some agreement that but for the vesting of the foreshore and seabed in the Crown Maori would have had basically a freehold title then that shall be confirmed by the High Court.  
There are two points to be made. The first point which Jeanette Fitzsimons referred to is an acknowledgment of course that Maori would probably have had freehold title issued to them. That also flies in the face of all of those who were going along nicely and thinking wrongly that the Crown already owned the foreshore and seabed. So it is no wonder Maori were up in arms—and still are.  
The other part of this is that this backroom talking having gone on and the Ministers having reached some agreement with a Maori grouping they will then have to go to the High Court. That raises for me the issue that this bill—this framework being set up—is not only complex but also has built into it the capacity for endless court applications to be made. I want to ask whether the courts will be properly resourced to deal with all that additional work. In particular how will the applicants be expected to have their customary rights recognised? Will there be legal aid? Is that another cost that will be piled on top of this legislation? I would like Dr Cullen the Minister in the chair or Dail Jones to tell me how people are to file their applications in the High Court without incurring cost. [ 
Interruption 
] OK. So this is just building up expectations without giving the proper means for people to get their customary rights recognised? 
Dail Jones 
: This is not a National Party gravy train.  
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: OK. It is a New Zealand First gravy train. Right great! It is not a National Party gravy train; it is a New Zealand First gravy train. I turn to clause 115A— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No gravy train! 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: I tell the member that there will be a gravy train. I am sorry but this will create another gravy train—it will. As long as people have to go to the courts there will be a gravy train.  
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 6 of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill and I would like to reiterate what my colleague Ken Shirley said. This part really is about regulation and of course the devil is in the detail. It warrants very close reading. There is any number of things that I could talk about but I want to draw the Committee’s attention in the first instance to clause 114 “Regulations” which in particular talks about the role in the regulations surrounding wardens. Clause 114 states: “The Governor-General may by Order in Council make regulations for any of the following purposes:”. So there will be no discussion about that and no parliamentary debate. The clause provides for the appointment of wardens it prescribes additional functions of wardens and it prescribes any duties or powers to be exercised by wardens. Clause 114(bd) prescribes “the means (including without limitation identity cards or badges or both) …”. So here there is in legislation regulations that prescribe identity cards and badges for the wardens who will patrol the beaches up and down up and down— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: They’ve got them now. 
HEATHER ROY 
: But I tell the member that they will be very different will they not? Those will be wardens the legislation implies of the Minister and Department of Conservation not of local bodies.  
If we look back to Part 2 we see that it gives us the detail for that. I say to people like Mr Peters who are sitting here and saying that I am wrong that it does not concern just the Minister of Conservation. There will be conversations all over the place. There will be consultation because this Government believes so fervently in listening to people—and then completely ignoring what they think and say. But this is actually a case of “the Minister and the Department of Confiscation”.  
When I put my children in the car this summer and take them to the beach just like the other hundreds of thousands of families in New Zealand who are used to hopping in the car and taking their children to the beach—[ 
Interruption 
] Ms Dyson is laughing away over there but I tell her that my children actually like going to the beach. In fact in the recent 150-year celebrations earlier this year when every MP was given a camera to take photos of constituents and so on I took my children to the beach at Lyall Bay. They had a wonderful afternoon and I am pleased I took a photo of them. It was hanging in the portrait gallery before the poor old gallery had to leave the temporary debating chamber. Mr Cullen might well hold his head in his hands but my children like going to the beach. Hundreds of thousands of families this year will arrive at the beach to find that they can no longer go on to and be on the beach because there will be wardens patrolling up and down with their identity cards and badges and saying that they are sorry but they are going to limit people’s access or worse still prohibit access. They will say: “If you don’t leave we’re going to fine you $5000.” Well New Zealanders do not appreciate that.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Where does it say that? 
HEATHER ROY 
: Has that member not read it? Mr Peters has not even read the bill! He does not know about that $5000 fine. Yet he is happy to subject New Zealanders to those fines and to having their access to beaches limited. He is supporting this bill without even knowing the detail. I suggest to that member that he go away to the lobby sit down and carefully read this bill because it is not too late to withdraw his support. We are not finished. We have the third reading to come and Mr Peters can change his mind so that the provisions New Zealanders currently enjoy the hundreds of thousands—[ 
Interruption 
] That is right. He is thinking of withdrawing. He is signalling to Dr Cullen now that he has changed his mind because he had not read the detail and did not realise what this bill would actually mean for New Zealand families. Well I say to Mr Peters: “Shame on you for making such a very ill-informed decision.” Mr Jones is now having to rush over to Mr Peters to advise him about what to say next and to him also I say: “Shame on you.” Hundreds of thousands of New Zealand families will be affected by this legislation and they will not appreciate it. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have been listening to ACT party members this morning and I have come to the conclusion that they are a miserable sad lot. There they are. They put up one of their junior members who said she would not be able to go to the beach this Christmas. That is an extraordinary claim. Then she started to talk about a group called the Maori wardens whom she clearly understands nothing about—nothing whatsoever. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes she did. They say that the malady of the ignorant is to be ignorant without knowing it. But there they are knowing full well that there has to be somebody who is policing the law. That is the way the law works. [ 
Interruption 
] No no. Some will be Maori and some will not be Maori—OK? Members should just relax.  
 That party’s members are getting up and making extraordinary claims not one of which is true. I will recap— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: They must have learnt a few. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Young Nick Smith is at it again. He cannot keep his mouth shut. He has a penchant for saying the most idiotic things and not being able to handle issues when he is under pressure. 
Stephen Franks 
: Tell us about the $5000. 
Opposition Member 
: Caught out! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No no. What was said by the member was that whereas in the past she used to be able to go to the beach this year she will not be able to.  
Mita Ririnui 
: Rubbish! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It is worse than rubbish; it is disingenuous nonsense it is deceit it is misleading people and it is designed to get a vote that it will not get. That is why that party is going to the floor. It will not be back in 2005—it will be gone.  
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Will you resign if anyone is denied access this summer? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: How can anybody be denied access to public property?  
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Why don’t you read the bill then? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I have the read the bill. In fact New Zealand First was largely responsible for drafting many parts of it. That is why the country can have enormous confidence that this will be right—because we have been involved in the drafting of the bill.  
A previous speaker said that there will be a gravy train. Quite the converse is true. Georgina te Heuheu must know that we deliberately did not allow for the provision for legal aid in this bill. So how can there be a gravy train? These are not the bad old days of National. These are not the bad old days of the Labour Party—ACT in the old days. There is no gravy train at all. But here is the most amazing thing. Which one of the members from ACT raised any concern about the sale of Westhaven Marina by the former National Minister John Banks? Did we hear a murmur or mutter from National? No. Did we hear a murmur or mutter from the ACT party? No. The Westhaven Marina was being offered to the whole world and neither ACT nor National would say a word about that when their old mate John Banks was about to flog it off to foreigners. The Government had to intervene and buy it in order to keep it in New Zealand ownership. The ACT party did not say a word about Westhaven Marina. The National Party would not say a word at all. It should have because it might have saved John Banks’ skin. He might still be the mayor had he not been so foolish. So when we talk about preserving these assets and resources in the name of New Zealanders parties should have a care for their own record. In the case of the National Party it ain’t got one—it has an appalling record. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What about the member’s policy on Auckland airport? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: New Zealand First’s policy is not to sell our resources to foreigners. When the Auckland airport was sold 82 percent of it was sold to New Zealanders. That is way above the 24.9 percent rule. But Nick Smith sold Paraparaumu Airport to one of his mates. That is what he did. Why does he bring out an example that makes him look stupid? One would not use an example that makes one look stupid unless one’s name is Nick Smith. The Auckland airport went to New Zealanders without debt to New Zealanders. At 82 percent it could be said that it was the only privatisation that ever worked and I was responsible for it.  
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: In favour of privatisation. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: But I did not sell it to foreigners. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Part 6 “Provisions relating to public foreshore and seabed register recognition agreements and other matters” absolutely depicts the point that Heather Roy was making about the uncertainty this bill creates for all New Zealanders. I was very interested to hear Nanaia Mahuta talk about the sort of decision making that is being given back to local communities and that is no more poignant than in the case of the fate of the west coast harbours Whaingaroa harbour—or Raglan Harbour as many people know it—Aotea Harbour and Kawhia Harbour. What is the fate of those harbours? We just do not know what backroom deals the Labour Government is doing with Tainui. One moment Nanaia Mahuta is leaving for the Maori Party. and the next moment she is back in the fold. There is no doubt that one way or another this Labour Government is conniving to do a deal behind the backs of ordinary New Zealanders.  
Only 2 or 3 years ago I wrote to the then Minister of Fisheries Pete Hodgson asking how we could sensibly organise an arrangement whereby those with interests in Whaingaroa harbour—the local commercial and amateur fisheries local Maori and the local people in that area—could come to an agreement and a sensible plan. He said that all we had to do was write to him and he would organise it. We did that but there has been stalling year after year month after month because as we know the Labour Government is conniving behind closed doors with Tainui to do a special deal. There is absolutely no doubt about that.  
I see Dr Cullen shaking his head. I ask him this: is this bill making things simpler less confusing less complex or less costly than would have been the case had the Court of Appeal ruling been upheld?  
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Now you’re getting on to that. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Too right I am getting on to that because National would have produced a certain simple and elegant bill. Instead Labour has come out with one of the most confusing complex uncertain and costly bills this nation has ever seen. That is really the ultimate test of this legislation before us. It engenders uncertainty cost and complexity in every aspect and every part of it including Part 6 which is before us.  
What happened this morning for instance when the Prime Minister’s electorate office was stoned? I have just had reports back from the Port Waikato electorate office that staff there are concerned because there have been threats against that office and I understand against offices up and down the country. This is the sort of reaction that this legislation—legislation that Dr Cullen and his merry crew from Labour are forcing upon the people of New Zealand—is engendering. There is utter confusion utter uncertainty and utter complexity and we have no idea how high the costs may be.  
After all local government the Resource Management Act and regional councils are all brought into this through this most uncertain and complex planning which we still do not know about in terms of the legislation. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Read the bill. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I have read the bill many times and again I ask what the costs will be—as my colleague Georgina te Heuheu has asked. How will some of the costs in the High Court be paid for? What is the limit? We hear that New Zealand First has said that there will be no legal aid. Thank goodness for that because we know that whatever happens this will be another gravy train. 
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I will follow on from my comments earlier about how I was heartened by the Minister’s amendments to clause 112. I take the gentle rebuke from the National member Georgina te Heuheu that that might indicate United Future is now satisfied with it but that would not be the case. When something is black and one sees it lightening a little it is possible to be heartened by it. That would explain why throughout the voting in the Committee stage members will find that United Future members have been supporting the Minister’s amendments because they do make improvements to the bill. However we have been voting against the parts because they are not yet perfect. There are still things that we are concerned about within each part.  
We are pleased to see that there is a little more openness with regard to this negotiation process for agreements to recognise territorial customary rights but it is not enough. The Green member Jeannette Fitzsimons has made a good point that we would like to see more openness with regard to whom the Government is negotiating with. I think it would be fair for everybody to know. We do not want to see things going on in backroom deals in this country. We will be looking at what results from clause 113 when we see the list finally published of who has received a deal from the Government. We assume that that will be prior to the election next year. We will see who has been given what in order to take the heat out of this situation. 
Stephen Franks 
: What about 115A? 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: Yes I will come to new clause 115A in a moment. I mentioned earlier that at the beginning of this process the Crown really should have had its day in court at the Privy Council so that the decision of the Court of Appeal could have been tested properly. I think though that most New Zealanders could assume that because the Crown did not go there the legal advice was that it would have not have been able to overturn the Court of Appeal decision and we probably would have found that the Privy Council upheld the overturning of the Ninety Mile Beach case. Although we do not have that certainty from having seen that case have its day in court I think that is probably the reality of the situation. That law had been changed therefore something needed to be done about New Zealanders’ rights to public access across our foreshore and seabed.  
With regard to new clause 115A “Status of existing and future agreements between Crown and claimant groups” we have heard lots of claims about what that is. I accept the Minister’s explanation yesterday that it is a very simple clarification and that it does not change anything with regard to what is taking place in treaty negotiations. I think that is what the clause is intended to do. It does raise the issue as to why when National has made so much about this clause it did not support my amendment yesterday to entrench clause 12(2)(b) in order to make it more difficult for a future Parliament to transfer the title of the foreshore and seabed to any other entity. It just does not make sense. National has been going on and on about what could happen and then when it had a chance to do something about it it completely backed down and did not support it.  
I understand the reason for the Government not supporting my amendment. It has made it very clear that it just does not see it as being an issue of constitutional significance. But we never heard that from the National Party. All we heard from it was that nothing should happen that could alienate the foreshore and seabed in the future. New Zealand First’s position is even more confusing. Even this morning Mr Dail Jones came in and said that his party would make sure that alienation could never happen in the future. Yet it did not vote for the entrenching amendment either. It did not even consider the fact that we could have doubly entrenched it so that it was not able to be overturned by a simple majority in the future. That is the kind of doublespeak we get used to on this issue.  
As a result of all that New Zealanders have no assurance that in the future Parliament could not by a simple majority transfer the title of the public foreshore and seabed either to foreign ownership or to a Maori tribal group who claim for that under the treaty clauses. We continue to get doublespeak from New Zealand First and we continue to get a lack of action from the National Party when we could have taken some steps in this debate to achieve something. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I speak in relation to the amendment to clause 117(3) on Supplementary Order Paper 306 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. Although it is not mentioned specifically there it is a clause inserted by the Deputy Prime Minister to deal in particular with the difficulty or the situation that has arisen around the Bayswater Marina on the North Shore. I seek the leave of the Committee to have that subclause voted on separately from the whole Supplementary Order Paper. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is quite entitled to seek leave for that. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.  
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 111 be agreed to: 
to insert after subclause (1) the following new subclauses: 
(1A)Upon beginning discussions with a view to an agreement under subsection(1) the Ministers must as soon as practicable advise any— 
(a)holders of ancestral connection orders; and 
(b)holders of customary rights orders; and 
(c)holders of territorial customary rights orders; and 
(d)iwi; and 
(e)hapu— 
who may have an interest in the specified area that an agreement is under discussion. 
(1B)Before an agreement is entered into under subsection (1) the Ministers must take into account any issues raised by the interested parties specified in subsection (1A). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is an amendment in the name of the honourable member Larry Baldock to insert new clause 114AA. Briefly the proposal does not specify a majority by which the entrenchment provision must be carried. That provision will be dealt with as an ordinary amendment.  
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Larry Baldock to insert new clause 114AA be agreed to: 
to insert after clause 114 the following new clause: 
114AARestriction on amendment or repeal of certain provisions 
(1)Subject to subsection (3) this section applies to the following provisions (the reserved provisions): 
(a)section 12(2)(a) which provides that no part of the public foreshore or seabed may be alienated except by a special Act of Parliament: 
(b)this section. 
(2)No reserved provision may be repealed or amended unless the proposal for the amendment or repeal— 
(a)is passed by a majority of votes proportional to the number of votes cast for the Ayes at the third reading of the Bill that became this Act; or 
(b)has been carried by a majority of the valid votes cast at a poll of the electors of the General and Maori electoral districts: 
(3)This section does not apply to the repeal of any reserved provision by a consolidating Act in which that provision is re-enacted without amendment and this section is re-enacted without amendment so as to apply to that provision as re-enacted. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 18 
Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to the proposed omission of clause 111 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to omit the omission of this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 19 
Green Party 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 112 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to omit subclauses (2) and (3). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We now move to clause 113 with an amendment in the name of the honourable member Metiria Turei to subclause (2)(b)(iii) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. I have just been instructed that that amendment is out of order as it is inconsistent with the previous decision on the amendment. 
The question was put that the amendments in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen set out on Supplementary Order Paper 304 to the amendments to clause 107 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in his name be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments to the amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments to Part 6 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen as amended and the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 306 in his name be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments as amended be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments as amended agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 6 as amended be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 6 as amended agreed to. 
Schedules  
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to schedule 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Deputy Prime Minister’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 to schedule 2 indicates his intention to vote against the schedule standing part. 
Schedule 2 not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of MetiriaTurei to schedule 3 be agreed to: 
to omit the item relating to section 24 of the Conservation Act 1987. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of MetiriaTurei to schedule 3 be agreed to: 
to omit the item relating section 4 of Te TureWhenua Maori Act 1993. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to schedule 3 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 3 as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to schedule 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 4 as amended agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2  
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: There will be one debate on clauses 1 and 2 but each clause will be voted on separately. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 This is the title debate in the Committee stage and I think the interesting point to be made is that at the end of this stage the Leader of the House will move to divide the bill to give it two titles: the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 and the Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Act 2004. 
I cannot help thinking that those two names are somewhat inadequate in the first case and quite misleading in the second case. The Foreshore and Seabed Bill should surely be entitled at this stage the “Foreshore and Seabed Alienation Empowerment Bill” in order to become the Act. Effectively the bill empowers the Government of the day either to hold in perpetuity or to dispose of and the whim of the Minister of Conservation in conjunction with the views of the Minister of Maori Affairs are what will hold sway at any particular point in this country’s future if this bill is passed today. 
The Government has reserved for itself the right to dispose of foreshore and seabed at various times and in various ways and we will talk further about that in the third reading debate. But a title to a bill should indicate very clearly what it does and what it enables. Without question this bill enables alienation of the foreshore and seabed—ownership of which so many New Zealanders believed should be held by the Crown and was held by the Crown post-1840. 
The second title referred to is the Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill 2004. I think this is an extremely cynical title because most people on hearing of an amendment to the Resource Management Act will think the Government has listened to what they are saying and has decided to deal with some of the less helpful aspects of that Act so that many many developments and improvements around this country that lead to employment opportunities and most important to bigger incomes can be delivered for those who take the risks to set up such enterprises and activities. But no this amendment particularly will make development in land adjacent to the coastline of this country more difficult in many many cases. 
Yesterday in the various debates in the Chamber we heard that an acceptance has developed that over 10 percent of this country’s coastline is likely to come under some sort of reservation status for Maori to be administered by a new group appointed by Maori and apparently to look after the customary rights the courts will bestow on Maori. That is an utter nonsense in the first place because if Maori have customary rights they already have them. They do not need courts to start telling them what the constraints on those rights are. The interesting thing is that from the time this bill receives the royal assent the Minister of Maori Affairs and the Minister of Conservation in particular will be the Ministers who tell Maori how when and where they can exercise those customary rights. It seems to me that that is not much of a right at all. 
I go back to the point made about the title to the Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill. Most people are going to believe that this bill is about the Labour Government finally waking up and realising what a huge brake the Resource Management Act has been on our economy and more particularly on the opportunity to raise incomes in this country. Far from that this bill is just more of the very heavily layered bureaucracy that that Act already puts upon New Zealanders who are trying to do things for the betterment of this country. The bill has an inadequate title indeed.  
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I think that speech demonstrated what we have seen throughout this entire debate which is the shallowness and the confusion in the National Party’s arguments. The member Gerry Brownlee should have been here perhaps last night and this morning when some of his colleagues started to argue that we should allow the current court process to proceed to conclusion. Indeed Dr Hutchison came perilously close to justifying the violence that occurred overnight on the basis that the Government provoked it by not allowing that court process to proceed to conclusion. That of course would result in the creation of new private title to the foreshore and seabed. That would occur because customary land status granted under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act could then be translated into freehold title by a relatively simple procedure.  
The irony is that only two parties in this House support that for two opposite reasons: the Maori Party because it believes there would be a lot of customary land status granted and the ACT party because it believes there would be very little customary land status granted. The Green Party did not support allowing the current court process to proceed through to conclusion; it was going to block it off in a number of different ways.  
Metiria 
Turei 
: Oh rubbish! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Well blocking off alienation and blocking off other aspects is to interfere in the current court process. The current court process under NgatiApa would lead to the acquisition of alienable private title over the foreshore and seabed and legislation would be required to overturn and overrule that. If the member has not understood that she has understood nothing about this issue. 
We then have had this repeated nonsense that somehow or other we already know that more than 10 percent of the foreshore and seabed will be in foreshore and seabed reserves. Let me emphasise again that the test for territorial customary rights is a high test as is the common law test. All that this bill does is to codify in statute what the best received expert advice is on what those common law tests should be so that they are placed beyond doubt. It will now be for the court to decide how that is interpreted.  
Ten percent of the foreshore and seabed is owned down to the mean high water spring by Maori under Maori title. It is far from true that that necessarily translates to it having foreshore and seabed reserve status because there are other tests to be met including that of exclusive use and occupation. So the member is wrong on that. That is in the bill it is in the Act and it is clear that the court has to apply that test of exclusive use and occupation. Indeed Mr Grant Powell has complained today that the test is too high. The irony is that if the tests were properly applied those who succeeded in the NgatiApa case would have a very low prospect of qualifying in any case because they have had continuity interrupted since 1840. That is unlike say NgatiPorou Whanau-a-Apanui and people in the north and elsewhere where that continuity has not been interrupted; they are far more likely to be able to meet some of the tests within this bill. 
What the National Party has never managed to explain having said that customary rights should be recognised is how they should be recognised. National members have tried to imply that somehow or other one can have one’s cake and eat it; that somehow or other customary rights can be recognised without our providing for a regime that enables that to be followed through. Of course there is therefore some degree of complexity in that respect. The real purpose of their argument throughout has been to create the image that control over the entire foreshore and seabed is being handed over to Maori and that the current process is just that in drag. That is merely designed to work up Pakeha fears. Indeed we do not yet know whether the axe that went through Helen Clark’s electorate office came from a disgruntled Pakeha worked up by the National Party or from a disgruntled Maori worked up by the Maori Party. We have not yet managed to work out whose fingerprints were on the axe as I understand it and it is pretty hard to tell from fingerprints whether it was a Maori or a Pakeha who threw it in the first place. Let us not jump to conclusions in that particular respect because that party as well has been pretty keen to wind up hatred and violence within society around this particular issue.  
I congratulate New Zealand First and indeed United Future although we could not agree in the end. We have all tried to seek a solution to this situation that recognises the rights of all New Zealanders. This party and this Government are proud to be presenting a bill that does that. At the end of the day people will find that nothing actually changes dramatically compared with where they are at the present time.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I do hope that subsequent speakers will be allowed to speak in as wide ranging a capacity as Dr Cullen just has. I seek the leave of the Committee to have a second turn given that I stuck so closely to the debate on the title. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Of course speakers will be able to range very widely. It is not only a title debate; it is a wide-ranging debate and indeed is a summary of events over the last day or so. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The Government claims in this bill to be protecting the foreshore and seabed on behalf of all New Zealanders. In fact what we have is a device to alienate the foreshore and seabed.  
New Zealand First has failed on two counts. Firstly it does not have one law for all. Secondly it has not stopped the Government from transferring title to the foreshore and seabed to settle claims. The extraordinary thing about it is that the Government is perfectly upfront that that is its intent. It intends to transfer the title just as it transferred Lake Rotorua and the other lakes to Tainui and other claimants. We heard it from the Minister today when he referred to Te Whanau-a-Apanui Ngati Porou Tainui and so forth. That is the Government’s intent and New Zealand First is conniving at it. It does not matter what New Zealand First members say. I am sure Mr Peters will say that they have protected the foreshore and seabed on behalf of all New Zealanders. That is completely false. New Zealand First members have betrayed their own principles by voting for the bill and they will be judged on that fact.  
I draw attention to these points. Why is it that they have failed on the grounds of “one law for all”? They have set up a structure of customary rights that are for Maori only. It does not matter what they say about the Auckland anniversary regatta or anything of that nature. The Minister in the chair Michael Cullen knows because it was stated in the explanatory note of the original bill that only Maori will get them. That is the belief of the Government. Straight away we have divisive law not one law for all. Sure it might be one bill but that bill has separatist law—law for non-Maori law for Maori Maori get customary rights and everyone else fails because of the date chosen. On that point alone New Zealand First has fundamentally failed.  
The second point which is in many ways even more serious is that they are now allowing alienation of the foreshore and seabed in settlements. That is how the Government got the votes of the Maori caucus and quite likely that of Nanaia Mahuta as well. A transfer of that title will now be allowed à la the Rotorua lakes. Members should remember that they have been in Crown ownership for the last 100 years almost on behalf of all New Zealanders. The Government’s intent is to transfer the lakes to Te Arawa and the foreshore and seabed in the West Coast harbours much of the East Cape and eastern Bay of Plenty and much of the far north to the Maori claimants. Those are the facts.  
We know that even when symbolic transfers take place the people assert claims. That has already happened. There are problems around Lake Taupo. That is clear in the evidence on the case involving Lake Rotorua. There will be greater problems around Lake Rotorua. We have learnt those lessons unlike New Zealand First. We intend to have a simple rule which is that the foreshore and seabed will be in Crown ownership on behalf of all New Zealanders with no exceptions whatsoever. That is very clear.  
I turn to a final point. The National Party specifically sought leave to vote for subsection 3 in relation to Bayswater Marina. We sought leave to do that because we wanted to support it. Do members know what the Government did in its arrogance? The Government stopped it. That is typical of the whole process of the last 2 days which included tabling a 67-page document and saying that we should read it over dinner time and then we would know all about it. The media do not get to know. The public do not get to know. The submitters do not get to know. It is typical of the arrogance of the Government.  
It is a sad day when we have to conclude the Committee stage of this day when there are many other members who want calls by referring to the process. The process has been so deeply flawed that Parliament has been denied a proper debate. How can we have a proper debate when immediately before it starts a 67-page document is tabled? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The last speaker has been on his feet with other colleagues because the leader of their party is incapable of sustaining an argument on the issue any more. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Franks that that was my first sentence. The member should show a bit of tolerance. Why is he so sad about it? It is because he is a loser and he is locked into a loser. That is why he is not patient. He will not even hear my first sentence before he starts shouting. 
If those members had any argument then Mr Brash would be here. If they had any substance— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is a reference to the non-presence of a member. The member was phrasing it correctly before but— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Is it appropriate for a member to stand up and directly say to another member of Parliament that he is a loser? It should have been picked up because comments like that are directed towards the Chair which is not good but also I do not think it is good to say that other members are losers. Members have been pulled up in this debate—indeed one of them was slung out of the Chamber without any justice whatsoever—for doing far lesser things. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that issue. The member who has the call was getting a little loose. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: How sensitive people have become when they cannot even take that criticism! They rise and seek the Chair’s defence. The National Party has lost all shred— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The Chair must not be brought into this argument. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I rose to defend a much smaller party not the National Party. If Mr Peters wants to point to the National Party and say “Loser” that is OK; he would clearly be looking in the mirror and seeing what has happened to him since 1992. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Again I thank the member. It did not even occur to me that he was seeking the defence of the Chair. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We are in danger here and I really would like a considered opinion on this. I never ever thought I would hear the sensitivities of the National Party being expressed in this way. Are we now to say as has often been touted by the Labour Government that there are no winners no losers every one is a participant and should be treated fairly and gently and we should not prick people’s sensitivities? Because debate in this Chamber will be restricted if we go down the National Party line here now. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I would appreciate it if there are no further points of order along those lines because they are not in fact points of order. I was enjoying listening to the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: My point is though that the reason why the National Party and ACT party have been so venomous is that what is clearly emerging from this bill and this debate is the fact that there is only one party that has always stood for one law for everybody and that party is New Zealand First. That is why they have been so bitter so twisted and so venomous. Their track record is absolutely contrary to what they say. The idea that they could actually claim this issue as Dr Brash sought to do in Orewa and ever sustain it was never going to happen and it is back now where it belongs—it is back home with New Zealand First where it always was. That has always been the case with our party. We were founded on it unlike that party over here. 
I believe that the reality is that when Judge Hingston made a decision that water and land are the same thing he never ever thought that the Court of Appeal would accept it. He never believed that the Court of Appeal would accept it. The Court of Appeal actually did not accept it. What it said was one can go to the Maori Land Court but one’s chances of winning are virtually nil. So pray tell me how did Maori go from that decision to start believing as some extremists did that they owned the foreshore and the seabed? 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Somebody told them that. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I am telling that member this: the media in this country have a lot to answer for because they helped plant that totally extravagant supposition in Maoridom’s ears and in their mind. And they have sustained it all these months although the Court of Appeal said nothing of the sort. The Court of Appeal could not conceive of any Maori group winning—not just NgatiApa. That is a fact. 
There was Tariana Turia out there on a march saying: “We own the foreshore and the seabed.” Well let me tell members that we never did because 170 miles of it was given to us by international treaty. That is what nationhood is about—not making extravagant claims that we cannot sustain and that frankly are embarrassing. It is embarrassing to a people who believe in independence and self-worth—this hugging mentality that somehow we will have conveyed upon us something that does not belong to us. We do not ever bow down in respect of where we come from to those Maori who think somehow we are being treacherous. I have never heard so much bunkum in all my life. 
But my point to her is this. What is her record when it comes to keeping land? What is her party’s record her management committee’s record about selling Maori land? What is it? Because ours is intact. Dover Samuel’s record is intact. She should not criticise us Maori and say we are less Maori than her. She makes extravagant claims that are totally and utterly unsustainable. If we want to be fair about this we know full well that what is being said by a number of people is utter drivel. 
The sad aspect in particular is this. I heard people talk about wahi tapu yesterday as though that issue was of no moment whatsoever. I could not believe it. Who brought Christianity to this country? Who adopted Christianity? The Maori did. And here they are believing in these traditions and believing that they are important. To have Europeans in this Chamber such as those from the National Party whom I heard say that stomping all over a tradition brought here adopted here and acclimatised here— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s as broad as a bus; it’s this wide. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh there you go you see. Like Ninety Mile Beach is a wahi tapu? That is rubbish. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I sat here last night in amazement. I totally reiterate and support what my tuakana from Ngati Wai said about the differences amongst us that pervade this land and that this humbug of trying to ensure there is generic understanding and practice in the sense of tikanga is put asunder by people on the other side there who were talking about white people forgetting that there were other people and talking about brown people. This is about all New Zealanders and the conflict in my mind is the extremes of the rednecked racists and the crazies in here who are helped along by the press which is not doing its homework and is chastising us for doing something that is the best thing for Maoridom in a long long time and this bill points that out. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt the member’s speech but he needs to think a little bit carefully about what he is saying. He referred to rednecked racists who are here. I am not a racist and I am certainly not a redneck. I take deep offence at any suggestion that that might be the case. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that. I was just pondering that turn of phrase. Would the member withdraw and apologise. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I apologise. Certainly I am humble enough to withdraw and apologise when I say outrageous things. But I will not stand here and listen to this nonsense of people preaching about tuku-ed whenua things that we have inherited from our ancestors that are tinged through the history of time in this great country by raupatu people setting to on us stealing it and most of all our own people selling it. 
We have these extremes going on and on about let us preserve the land. It is at risk out there at the moment. Let me tell members this: the land that is retained the most is within the regulated framework. It has stood the test of time in the sense of local authority interference at times. Certainly it is about making decisions in contemporary times for our people and that is right. Being from NgatiPorou I support this stance. I am proud of being from there and not ashamed—as I am proud of being from NgaiTahu. My NgaiTahu side were here in the depth of the night in 1992 with the Government then in power and they signed an agreement about fishing in the customary sense. People appear and make believe that this is brand new. Woe betide those who want to keep us in the dungeons of doom and gloom! 
We have to make decisions for all New Zealanders. We have to protect that strip of land that is from the high-water mark to the low-water mark. Let us get it right about confiscation. Let us get it right about the black market that our people are involved with at the moment. They are tahae-ing the kai—stealing it. They are selling it up in Auckland and for what reason? The cupboard is bare and I want to defend it. What is important to me? It is that we make sure that our young people can hold on to that journey that we made as young persons. I sit here and listen to all this prattle at the extremes by those who are saying: “We want to leave you there.” Not too long ago when crayfishing licences were let in this country our old people told us not to touch them because they were about moni and kai is tapu. Pakeha have all the crayfishing licences and they live well off them as a lot have lived well off the fishing quota and doing everything except helping our people. Who has imbued and encouraged the gravy train? Those people in that party and those Maori who have done very very well out of it and have not cared about pulling it down—those people. 
I listen and wonder when all I can hear in the mainstream media and parts of the Maori media is all this nonsense about taking a position and not caring about the demographic of young Maori in this country. I want young Maori to grow up and understand that they can go to the beach and it is there; that when they wake up tomorrow it will still be there. I know right now of properties with the koiwi of our tupuna—the bones of our tupuna—that have been sold because that whenua is alienated. Let us go back to what the court said and let us get it into context and understand what was said. If people want to let that happen kei te pai but they should not come and tell me as a NgatiPorou person and try to invent this generic niceness all around this country—either other iwi or Pakeha. Because I am very sure of what needs to happen in our rohe. I am very sure as the Minister of Maori Affairs of what I believe is the best position at this time. 
We run all these hui and we run all these wananga courses and half of them in my mind—those in the universities—are a lot of nonsense. We get puha; we get diplomas that are not relevant and mean nothing. I say to Mr Brownlee that we should take our kids who are not going to the rocks and teach them about that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 That was an extraordinary contribution from the Minister of Maori Affairs and it showed just how confusing this legislation is even after 48 hours of debate on it. I want to cover three particular points because we are no wiser today than we were on Tuesday evening when the 138 pages of bill plus Supplementary Order Paper were tabled without response. 
My first point is that Labour Maori caucus members have said to their constituency that the legislation will deliver 10 percent or more of the foreshore and seabed as reserves. That is what they are claiming on the front page of the  
New Zealand Herald 
. Either they are telling something different to other New Zealanders— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Who would read that? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well we are actually believing the Labour Maori caucus and what they say comes as no surprise. I come to Winston Peters. He led a very interesting exchange—[ 
Interruption 
]  
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is a robust debate. Interjections are welcome but not of that nature. They will cease now. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The second confusion is this. I asked a very simple question. In relation to the new idea of foreshore reserves can there be a marine reserve in the same place as a foreshore reserve? Can there be an aquaculture marine area? Nanaia Mahuta from the Labour Party told us yes. I shall read the transcript. I asked the question: “Can there be a marine reserve and a foreshore reserve in the same area?”. Winston Peters said—and I shall quote from  
Hansard 
—“Of course not.” That is what he said yesterday. That is what  
Hansard 
 states in black and white. He went even further. He said I was a fool and an idiot to suggest that they can be in the same area. Yet Nanaia Mahuta has told us the opposite. The man who takes credit for the legislation who says he has been intricately involved in the drafting of it says a foreshore and seabed reserve cannot be in the same place as a marine reserve. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If the trustees agree. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Today he says if the trustees agree. Well that is not what he said yesterday. He should read his  
Hansard 
. He has no damn idea of the legislation that he has spoken of. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Surely you cannot allow that member to get away with what he has just done. We know that he is frenetic and sort of hectic but he cannot get away with throwing papers at another member. I reckon that it is about time his whip got him under control. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising that. That did happen. The paper was partly passed and partly thrown. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yesterday he said exactly the opposite. Any member who reads  
Hansard 
 will know that that member said one thing yesterday and something different today. 
We then come to the issue of wahi tapu. Members on this side respect the fact that there are burial grounds and other customary rights that need to be recognised. However this legislation has provisions that are so broad and so wide-ranging that any old thing will get by. We already know that wahi tapu under the definition that is provided are any areas that are of spiritual significance to Maori—and I tell Mr Samuels that there are Maori who have said that Ninety Mile Beach is of spiritual significance; they have claimed that—and that will be determined by the Maori Land Court. Dail Jones gave an extraordinary speech in the Committee stage about the Maori Land Court. Basically he told the Committee that we should have no confidence in its capacity to make fair judgments on those very issues. The significance of that is this: those wahi tapu provisions will see ordinary New Zealanders excluded from those areas of foreshore and seabed. 
So after 2 days of debate under this appalling process whereby 138 pages of law have been dumped on this Committee we still do not know for sure what we are passing. We still do not know. One person is saying one thing and another person is saying another thing in respect of how many areas will be foreshore reserves. It is a completely new concept. I am pretty sure that before Tuesday no New Zealander council or anybody had even heard of the idea of foreshore and seabed reserves and the Government will make them law today. The Labour Maori caucus is saying that they will apply to over 10 percent of foreshore and seabed—4 million hectares. I ask Margaret Wilson whether the Labour Maori caucus is correct in saying that they will cover 10-plus percent. The Minister is absolutely silent. New Zealanders have been told on the front page of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 that the Labour Maori caucus is claiming that 10-plus percent will be set aside for foreshore reserves. The Labour Maori caucus knows but Margaret Wilson does not. 
We need answers to those sorts of basic questions and the reason National is opposed to this law is that it is a political con job. It is a political con job that completely fails to provide the sort of framework for all New Zealanders that will ensure our foreshore and seabed are properly managed. We are creating an array of new legal mechanisms that will create confusion and provide a field day for lawyers and the worst thing is that our foreshore and seabed will not be properly managed as a consequence. It is confusing contradictory and an absolute mess. I look forward to the next National Government fixing up this mess so that we can have foreshore and seabed legislation of which we can be proud. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The title of the bill is very bland and boring. It does not actually tell us what this bill does at all. Over the last day or so it has been very clearly outlined that this bill is about taking. It is about stealing. It has nothing to do with public access. We have seen that because public access rights are taken away by this bill. It has nothing to do with the protection of the foreshore and seabed from sale. Because of this legislation freehold titles are still able to be issued for a period. New Zealand First’s refusal to support my entrenchment clause has meant that it will remain an option to continue to sell the foreshore and seabed to foreign ownership. It is not committed to keeping New Zealand land in New Zealand hands let alone Maori land in Maori hands.  
The Minister of Maori Affairs stood in this House and blamed Maori for the loss of their own lands. He stood here and said that it is Maori’s fault that they do not have their land any more. He has denied the history of confiscation in this country denied the history of legislation that has come out of this House—from which this bill is a direct descendant—and blamed us for the land that was stolen from us. Let us call this bill the “Government Says ‘We Are The Champions’ Bill” because it has won. It has taken away from citizens of this country the right to go to court. Every person in this country must realise that this is the first step to the abolition of his or her civil rights. Is this what this country wants—a Government that will take away the right of its citizens to go to court because it does not like the outcome of the court decision? Is that what this country wants? No it is not.  
How about we call the bill the “Ha Ha You Lose We Win Bill?”. Again it is not about protecting public rights but about taking land because the Government wants complete control of the resources. How about calling it the “Tough Titty You Maoris Bill”? Maori will lose and lose under this. Nothing in this bill will give them anything. The customary rights orders have been so tightened that they will virtually be impossible to get. Only two or three iwi in the whole country will be able to get a territorial customary rights order because New Zealand First has put in place provisions that will make it impossible for them to get. [ 
Interruption 
]  
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The Minister has had his say. Please allow Metiria Turei to have hers. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: The rhetoric contained in the bill is a disgrace. As parliamentarians and lawmakers we need to be committed to making good law that actually means something. This whole House knows that the provisions that New Zealand First has put in about going to the High Court for various interested groups mean nothing. It is a deception. It will cheat New Zealanders because they will believe that they have a right in law that in fact they do not have. They will waste their money trying to see those rights achieved in law. They will discover that their efforts have been purposeless and worthless because New Zealand First wants to make a symbolic point that will render New Zealanders without rights. Is that the kind of law that we as parliamentarians want to enact? Is that the kind of law that New Zealanders want to see on their law books? No it is not.  
New Zealanders are crying out for just laws that restore justice in our country protect the rights of all citizens protect the rights to keep New Zealand land in New Zealand hands and protect the rights of Maori to go to the courts just like every other citizen. Yet very shortly this morning the House will pass a law that will strip away those rights. This Parliament will be in disgrace if we continue to proceed with this bill. But at this moment we are still in a position not to proceed with it. We can take another course. Right now thousands of New Zealanders are out there asking us to do something else—put this on hold and take another path. An unjust law is not in their best interests. They do not want to see the divisiveness that this legislation will permeate through their community. 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) 
: 
 I want to say to 99.9 percent of all New Zealanders in this country that at Christmas they can go down to the beach with their family with their children have a barbecue have a hangi and go fishing. It was amazing to hear a speaker from the ACT party say that when she goes down to the beach with her kids they might be stopped by wardens and if they do not leave they might be fined. Let me give her some advice. She should take the kids down to the beach take suntan oil and do the “slip slop slap” so they do not get sunburnt lie on the beach have a good time and build sandcastles. But my advice is: do not go down on the bulldozer because fisheries officers will be there and wardens will be there to make sure that people use the beach appropriately for the benefit of all New Zealanders including Maori.  
I heard of a statement made by somebody who sits opposite: “I will oppose this bill with every fibre of my body.” Who said that? I am still trying to identify who said that. But that person has been an apparition—has not been seen has not turned up here. [ 
Interruption 
] I am just saying that is what I heard from a person who sits across the other side of the Chamber: “I will oppose the bill with every fibre in my body.” Today we have seen the National Party roll out the dead—a few have come out of the deep freeze. Today they say they will oppose this bill. The reason why they oppose this bill is quite clear—and one thing about the National Party is that they tell the truth they are clear they tell the facts. The reason why they oppose the bill is that it provides customary rights for Maori in this country. That is why the National Party opposes the bill.  
I turn to the title of this bill. In 1993 the House passed Te Ture Whenua Maori Act and the National Party was the Government. I wonder why the National Government did not think perhaps about the implications of a Court of Appeal decision in terms of the jurisdiction of the Maori Land Court? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why didn’t Maori think about it? 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS 
: Why did the National Government not think about it? The outcome is a sham. That legislation of 1993 empowered the Maori Land Court—and the National Party was the Government. They never ever mentioned anything; never dreamt about the foreshore and seabed. Yet we have a Court of Appeal. There no Maori on that court; no Maori amongst those high-flying judges. They are all Pakeha and they determined that in fact the Maori Land Court has the jurisdiction to hear applications not just about land but the foreshore the seabed under the water out to the 12-mile continental shelf. What an absolute sham!  
I am saying that if the Parliament had decided that the Maori Land Court should have jurisdiction then it would have titled the legislation of 1993 the “Maori Ture Whenua (Foreshore Seabed and Land) Act”. But it did not and here we are back here today listening to the claptrap from the other side of the Chamber from members of a previous Government that was responsible for promoting that Act.  
I have a vested interest a conflict of interest in this foreshore and seabed legislation. I want to say that before Rodney Hide or the ACT party start frothing at the mouth about it. I am a member of the hapu Ngati Wai like my whanaunga the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Ngati Wai people are actually by the sea—generations and generations of our tupuna. We have never been accorded any rights or recognition in terms of our customary rights whatsoever. Today I am proud to stand with my colleagues and my Maori colleagues on the other side to give recognition to the customary rights that our people have had for generations and generations.  
I say to our people that if they do not want to pick up that opportunity they do not have to. If they do not want to go to the Maori Land Court or the High Court they do not have to. This Government is not going to take them around the neck and force them to go to the Maori Land Court or the High Court. But that is their option. They have the option to codify their rights in the law. So when the local councils come along with some extraordinary or unusual development project our people can say: “Hang on. This is crossing and transgressing the customary rights of our people.” Is that not fair? The lunatics—the people who have been smoking too much puha and are hallucinating—say they represent Maori.  
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I have been in the Chamber now for 3 hours in total since last night and this is my first call. This bill is being rammed through. The title should not be “Seabed and Foreshore” it should be the “Beach Trolls Empowerment Bill”. Dover Samuels just mocked the idea that there would be fees and that wardens would be enforcing fees. I tell Mr Samuels that the  
Spirit of New Zealand 
 trust that takes kids on sail training all around the country has had to drop Mayor Island off its agenda because every time the kids wanted to swim ashore from the boat beach trolls emerged from the rocks and tried to charge every one of them a fee and the trust could not afford it. What is the Government going to do about that? That is the sort of thing that these beach wardens will be doing. This is formalising kaitiaki-ship—although no one knows what that means— 
Hon Member 
: Guardianship. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Guardianship? No guarding the koha. That is what it is all about. This bill is just a grab for power from a Government that is willing to give it by setting up a false form of ownership where the real control goes to a race-selected minority. This is absolutely a dishonest piece of law. We are opposing this somewhat to the surprise of many decent members of ACT National and other parties because they have a view that the Government must be doing something right if Maori are jumping up and down so much. That is the only way they can judge it because there has been no truthful information about this bill for months. There has been nothing. This bill comes back full of new clauses and we are told we have an hour and a half to read it. No wonder New Zealanders can judge only on the basis that Maori are jumping up and down and Tariana Turia does not like it!  
What it has actually done is very simple: it has taken the beaches from the control of local communities and local authorities and vested it in the Minister of Conservation. It is telling Maori that they can then front up and ask for guardianship rights in respect of customary activities that the bill does not define. It pretends to say that it does not cover spiritualism and then does. So there will be taniwha around every headland because it will be in the interests of people to invent them. Because it also expressly provides that when people want to do something on their beaches when they want to do something with a piece of coastline they can get the Maori people’s deeply deeply felt love for customary activity waived—as long as Maori sign the application to the court it can be waived. There is money in this but it is only negative. It puts Maori in a position of being always negative.  
 There is no real property right under this bill. If this bill were really conferring proper property rights Maori could be positive about it. They would be looking to see the useful things they would be doing with this land. Instead the only value they can extract is by being a pain in the neck to their neighbours. The only value they can extract is through extortion payments—through holding to ransom and then signing the application to the court. Then the court can accept that the customary activity is not being infringed.  
This bill also exempts these areas under guardianship from the provisions of the Resource Management Act—the only justifiable provisions in the Resource Management Act. These are the ones that say we cannot pollute and we cannot trash the flora and fauna. The Act exempts them from that. There is no explanation from the Ministers as to why there should be an exemption from the 10 most critical sections of the Resource Management Act. It is obvious. What was done here is a set of trade-offs. They were not going to provide real property rights to Maori on the very small areas that the courts would have found they were entitled to. Instead they create this shared management—and no man can serve two masters happily—across all of New Zealand potentially. We are aware from what the Maori caucus members themselves are saying it is at least 10 percent.  
This bill will live with as much infamy in New Zealanders’ memories in 10 years’ time as section 9 of the State Owned Enterprises Act. This deal has been trumpeted as simply the status quo. That is what David Lange told his Cabinet colleagues in 1986-87: “This is just the status quo; it does not mean anything.” This bill means a great deal. This is an entrenchment of racism in this country. There is nothing to justify the creation of these rights other than ethnic inheritance. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 It would be well to remind us all what New Zealand First stands for in respect of this bill. I want therefore to speak to the short title and to the amendments. Just to reiterate we began with Crown ownership as a guaranteed component. We talked about guaranteed access customary rights for all New Zealanders and one law for all under the legal process. That is where we stood in June and we stand there today.  
We hear some of the imagined posturings around the House and I am very sorry to say that the Green member seems somehow to be grounded in urban grievances of about 50 years ago. That member has no understanding of those of us who have a conflict of interest because we have been coastal dwellers along with many other thousands of Maori and Pakeha New Zealanders. We understand exactly what the foreshore is. We understand the seabed and we also understand the legal process implicit in this bill.  
That brings me to the second point. Last night and today by implication there seems to be some ability in this Chamber to go all around in a wide-ranging debate and forget what the amendments and the bill stand for. Let us look at it very very quickly. Part 2 concerns the Resource Management Act and on matters of national importance we have already heard an allusion last night and again today to the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with the ancestral lands water sites wahi tapu and other taonga. That is the law now and what will be added to that law is the protection of recognised customary activities forming an addition to Part 6 but one that is for all. Therefore Maori and New Zealanders of European and other backgrounds will benefit from that inclusion.  
Secondly in respect of this particular matter there was misunderstanding last night either deliberate or unknown as to where Part 2 stands. All these items are of national importance and all of them are ranked equally. All of them would be valued for themselves in any jurisdiction or any consent hearing. After proper weighting had been given to the value then and then only would the jurisdiction hearing an application at the ground level as it were start to assign due consideration to it. That is one law for all and all are equally matters of national importance.  
Last night I heard comment made that suggested very strongly that this new addition was somehow outstanding and was going to have prior importance. That is just not so and anyone here who understands case law and has been involved in any consent hearing knows exactly what is true.  
The third matter I wish to turn to is that of veto. It was much discussed in the course of the earlier debate. I reiterate that no veto was implicit or expressed in the language of this amendment to the bill—none at all. In actual fact as I said last night any consent hearing or any body must have regard to this suite of guidance these very clear criteria step by step that affect the area—the actual history of it the alternative which are all part of such a discussion—and in the end after all of those carefully delineated steps in the criteria if there is no significant adverse effect then and then only will the consent body make the decision. There is no veto there just a proper and normal legal process.  
The last thing I want to say concerns those bodies that came to the select committee and expressed their concerns quite rightly—and I am talking about the utility groups and the various other concerns of groups such as Transpower and the port companies. Despite the comments made by National Party members last night their certainty and their rights to perform are absolutely guaranteed in these amendments and in this bill. They are there. If members wish to read carefully the constructions placed there they will see just that.  
We should be able to go out of this Chamber at the end of the day and assure all of those groups that normal business is as it was yesterday and as it will be tomorrow and that up until the point of the commencement of this Act all the rights that had accrued and all the developments that had been properly processed and the procedures adhered to will take place—there is no limitation whatsoever. On behalf of New Zealand First I am pleased to be able to stand and support again this part of the bill. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 We have come to the final part of the Committee stage debate and I am pleased finally to get to a part that United Future can support. We will agree that the title “Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004” is a good one and we will be happy to vote for it. But up until this point as we have been going through the debate there has not been a single part that we have been able to support entirely because there are still many things that ought to be addressed in this legislation. We have however supported the Minister’s amendments throughout this process because we are engaged constructively in trying to make this bad bill a better bill. We are of the opinion that these amendments are accomplishing that.  
Winston Peters may be able to travel around New Zealand and claim that he has fixed it and that everything is now OK but we would not take that opinion. He will try to take all the credit for all of these amendments but many of them were discussed by the select committee in its deliberation and consideration and there are more than just New Zealand First that can claim credit for this. Winston Peters’ response to all the legitimate questions that people have around New Zealand is that we should trust him. He is the white knight in shining armour who will solve all our problems if we will just trust him. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What’s your poll? 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: I say to Mr Peters that I am afraid that when we look at his recent polls at 5 percent he has to understand that he has a long way to go before a majority of New Zealanders will trust him again. United Future has been involved in a constructive engaged process to try to make this bill the best it can be and we have been listening to the concerns of submitters throughout this process. We have not supported any other parts in this legislation so far and I will give members a quick summary of the reasons. Part 1—the discussion surrounding public domain versus sole Crown ownership—meant that we could not support that part. Part 2 concerns the issues around the entrenchment of clause 12(2)(b) which we hoped this Parliament would do in response to the concerns about the future alienation of the foreshore and seabed.  
Part 3 is concerned with the applications for cancellation of a customary rights order. It is certainly not clear enough nor prohibitive enough to protect Maori from losing their interests in that regard. Regarding Part 4—it is a complete sham to try to make out as though anyone other than Maori could get a customary rights order and we had a robust debate about that last night. 
 In Part 5 there are the issues around putting it into the matters of national significance and there is also clause 100 which contains the crazy idea that once one reclaims some land and turns it into dry land one cannot ever get title to it. In Part 6 there are the issues around clause 112. There is still insufficient transparency about the deals that will go on between the Government and applicants. Clause 2 is another reason we cannot support it. We support the title issue but unfortunately we will not be able to support clause 2 in terms of the commencement date for this legislation because there is a problem with it and I will address the rest of my comments to that.  
Because most of this legislation will come into effect on the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent there will not be sufficient time for many people around New Zealand to approach the Minister of Conservation as is set out in section 355AA(2)(b) in new clause 100A in order to get a written agreement with an applicant to vest a right title or interest in the relevant land. I imagine that the Minister of Conservation’s mailbox will be chock-a-block in the next couple of days as port authorities and people like the Wellington Reclamation Society the Waterfront Society and others seek to get a written agreement with the Minister of Conservation so that they may be able to get fee-simple title to the land they have paid for to get reclaimed which is going to be prohibited to them unless they have already got this written agreement.  
So I believe that the commencement date should be extended at least a couple of months to enable that process to occur. For that reason we will not be able to support the current commencement date which will probably be today or tomorrow after this bill is rushed through Parliament under urgency. The continued concerns we have expressed over the process of this legislation and the need for urgency this week has never been justified and the people of New Zealand ought to have been able to contemplate the massive number of amendments proposed in this legislation while they sat on the beach all through the summer. It would have been a great setting for further discussion and consultation on the beach under their umbrellas with their suntan lotion on. Therefore we could have resolved it. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I am delighted to have this chance to speak particularly when NgahiwiTomoana the chief executive officer of Ngati Kahungunu is in the Chamber. Ngati Kahungunu of course have responsibility for a huge part of New Zealand’s coastline and this bill affects very much tribal Maori in my electorate and its environs. 
I want to discuss the title of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. That title of course is a code. The real title should be the “Property Rights Recognition Regime Bill” but if it were called that we would not know what property rights we were talking about. So it has to be boiled down to foreshore and seabed property rights because this bill is entirely concerned with a property rights regime relating to the foreshore and seabed. 
I find it surprising that ACT is critical of that property rights regime and even criticises the wahi tapu aspects because in the report of the select committee ACT described the sanctity of property rights. Of course sanctity is holiness. It is a spiritual concept so ACT must therefore endorse the wahi tapu aspects of this bill which has exactly those aspects. But logic has never been part of ACT philosophy. 
Logic has also evaded all the speeches from National members particularly when they resort to that fatuous label of racism. The use of that term shows either their inability to read the bill and understand its concepts or a basic dishonesty in the way they approach their arguments.  
The characteristic of property is that there is a degree of exclusivity—a degree of ownership and control. What are the property right regimes in this bill? The property rights characteristics are that the rights must have been in existence in 1840. There is some exclusivity. They must have been in continuous existence and have been controlled by the same group since 1840 and they must have continued in that way to the present time. That is the determination of the property right. 
Because that right may apply more to Maori than Pakeha or only to Maori and not to Pakeha—no one can say which—it does not make it racist. It makes it no more racist than to say that the children of the rich who fund the coffers of some of the parties in this House are not entitled to that money because they inherited it. The elitism that comes by the old-school network in this country and that is perpetuated by the bandwagons it pushes is no worse than the property rights Maori are entitled to because they were here and exercised those rights from pre-1840 to the present time. 
Property rights are colourless. Property rights are not morally bound. Property rights are not determined by the colour of one’s skin one’s secular orientation or even one’s gender. Property rights are neutral on all those issues. The fact that some people qualify for property rights over others is part of the sanctity of property rights that ACT proclaims and in that respect this bill and ACT have something in common and ACT still has time to recognise that publicly in this Chamber. 
We have heard from the Green Party and we have heard some interjections from the Maori Party—and I must say “interjections” because that party has refused to take calls to explain its position on this bill. It claims that this is confiscation but it cannot be confiscation if it is codification of an existing property right. I think the argument that it is confiscation goes one step back and says: “Ah! We had rights once to property which have now gone. This Act does not now deliver on them therefore it is confiscation.” 
The Maori Party is really saying that this bill should include a grievance process such as in the Waitangi Tribunal. Well the bill does make reference to that because it states that it does not interfere with any rights to claim under the Treaty of Waitangi through the Waitangi Tribunal. So any rights that are no longer in existence today but will be in existence tomorrow and were valid once become a matter of grievance claim under the Treaty of Waitangi. There is no confiscation. The words codification and confiscation have similarity only in the first two letters. Other than that they are different concepts and have different uses. To confuse codification with confiscation is at best laziness and at worst a lack of candour. 
I want to talk about Mr Nick Smith’s hysterical contribution to this debate. Someone said he does not need a judge he needs a doctor but I am not sure— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member will withdraw that remark. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: I withdraw. It seems to me that if the man would take some method to calm down and consider the concepts then he would realise that Part 17 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act is what is reflected in the reserve provisions in this bill. It is a well-established regime. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I shudder to think what New Zealanders are thinking about Parliament this morning. They look to this place for leadership and I guess they just keep on looking—they will always keep on looking. In my view leadership has not been demonstrated by this minority Government not in the way it has put this whole process together and not in terms of the substance of the bill. This bill sets up a hoax. It is a cruel hoax. It promises everything to everybody then sets up a convoluted framework that will have people involved in judicial processes that will go on and on. At the end of the process the expectations that have been raised for all New Zealanders will surely not be realised. That is why I say it is not leadership.  
The main bill is called the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. It should be called— 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek leave for the leader of the National Party to take a call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No I do not want any points of order along those lines. That was actually out of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek leave to take a call on behalf of the leader of the National Party. That is in order. It is! 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I know that the member’s comment is closer to being in order but I really do not want to hear any more points of order along those lines. [ 
Interruption 
] I am not giving an actual warning but it will be pretty sudden when I do. I do not want to hear such points of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. There have been two points of order that were totally out of order. Georgina te Heuheu should have her time from the beginning of her speech. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I accept that and I am well aware of it. She will have ample time. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Mr Samuels has just demonstrated the kind of lack of leadership I was referring to.  
This bill is a hoax. On the one hand Winston Peters says to Maori: “Don’t worry your mana”—I am not sure how he sees that but I will give him the benefit of the doubt—“will be upheld.” Gosh he should tell that to all those Maori who are already planning to disrupt things this Christmas. On the other hand he says to all New Zealanders: “Don’t you worry. Your access to the beaches will be unimpeded because this foreshore and seabed will be in Crown ownership in perpetuity for your benefit forever and a day.” Clearly that is not true. He was wanting to be able to talk in that way before we knew that Nanaia Mahuta was going to support the bill anyway. Whereas Winston Peters kept saying that New Zealand First would fix it in the end his support probably was not required.  
This is all politics and we should not deny that. Politics have ruled this whole process and this bill since the Court of Appeal decision last year. A more appropriate title for Dr Cullen’s monument—this will be his monument no doubt; a bit of a cruel monument his epitaph—would be the “Foreshore and Seabed (‘We won. You lost. Eat that!’) Bill” because that is how he is treating New Zealanders in the bill he is presenting to Parliament and overseeing the passing of into law today. Shame on him!  
I am pleased that the Hon Dover Samuels can stand and give such confident assurance to New Zealanders: “Don’t worry. This Christmas you can go down to the beach take your slip-slop”—or whatever he said—“and your barbie. Everything is OK.” There is a report out this morning that Anaru Kira of Ngati Kura plans to block Dover Samuels’ own beach in Matauri Bay so that when he goes home either today or tomorrow he will somehow have to find access to his own beach. If that is a warning of things to come then this bill has failed badly in what it purports to do.  
I refer to the contribution from the Minister of Maori Affairs because he is the leading Maori. He holds the highest position on behalf of Maori and somewhere in his speech I think I was able to pick out one or two things. I could not understand most of it but I think he was alluding to the fact that all our young and bright Maori are developing and coming through. That is the one thing I do agree with him on. I do not know that there was much leadership shown there. However that is what we are stuck with.  
I say again to Maori people: “Don’t get angry! Don’t give them the benefit of seeing you get angry.” There is no point in that for our young people. I want young Maori in our schools and colleges to take hope because there is a whole side of Maori activity that is never talked about or proclaimed. I congratulate the entrepreneurs particularly Maori women in business and young Maori in business. I congratulate the Federation of Maori Authorities which oversees over a thousand economic entities some of them significant undertakings in managing multimillion dollar assets and in contributing to our economy. Members can see in this morning’s  
Dominion Post 
 if they have not already seen it a picture of a whole group of people having lunch on the side of Lake Taupo in a huge glasshouse. That trust the Tuaropaki Trust generates power and contributes to the national grid by supplying power to 30000 users. That is where Maori are at. 
MAHARA OKEROA (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 It is with some pride that I stand here. However there will be people who disagree with that position. I want to explore further the quotation that Dover Samuels used. This is what was said by Dr Brash in his interview with Paul Holmes: “We will oppose it with every fibre of our being.”—na katu kaha mai te tangata; with every fibre of our being. I want to explore further the fact that this Parliament was denied that extraordinary experience and spectacle—because it did not happen. We did not see that “fibre”; we did not see the tu kaha o te tangata. We saw nothing. Although that sounds hugely Churchillian at least Sir Winston Churchill that great statesman of the 20th century stood on the beaches and fought. Maybe that is a classic example for the Leader of the Opposition who denied us the opportunity to see that incredible spectacle.  
The other unusual thing was what we heard from the honourable member Wayne Mapp yesterday when he said he believes in what he reads in the newspaper. What an astounding public announcement that was to make in this Chamber! How could he do that? Why does he take the  
New Zealand Herald  
as the basis for his belief? Maori are criticised because they have a spiritual belief long held over many generations yet there is Wayne Mapp saying he believes in what he reads in the newspaper. That is astounding.  
Another thing that I heard last night refers to wahi tapu. It came from the member for Coromandel. I cannot quote it exactly but this is what it meant. In a sense the member said that she would not tolerate any customary value other than what was imposed on her. Yet Maori have a whole history of being imposed on. What this bill does is to recognise the customary rights and usages of Maori—as we should do. How can someone come from Coromandel and have that kind of attitude? If we are to talk about this bill being racist what do we have a demonstration of in that comment?  
Another point came from the Hon Dr Nick Smith. He had something to say about wahi tapu. There are degrees of wahi tapu for sure. If he is talking about the Wakapuakataiapure estuary then he should know he is the person who generated all the opposition to it. On that estuary there is a wahi tapu and it is an urupa. I have been led to respect non-Maoriwahi tapu like churches museums or whatever non-Maori see as significant. We have been brought up to respect those places so I would not drive my four-wheel drive vehicle over a non-Maori cemetery just in order to get to the beach. How can the provisions that we are making in our bill be racist?  
This bill is not about land; it is about the foreshore and seabed. It is not about people throwing toys out of cots or about political point-scoring. It is not about taking emotive positions that are not based on the facts of the matter. As a member of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee I was appalled at one of the submitters a young person who gave us a co-submission in which she said categorically that she would not be able to go to the beach to get kai for her koro and kuia. How can the Opposition be responsible for transmitting a message of that nature? How can it do that? That is totally immoral. I have to ask where that comes from in terms of propaganda and misinformation. How can that be so? New Zealand First and this Government are accused on the one hand of alienating the foreshore and seabed and on the other hand of stealing them. We are not stealing the foreshore and seabed. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 We of course have seen all this before. That is why we believe that this bill should be called the “Just One More Rip-off in a Long History of Them Bill”. The tragedy is that this mean-minded approach was unnecessary and is unnecessarily destructive. There is a simple solution to this issue and the Greens have been saying that from the beginning. It is to allow Maori to proceed to the court—allow their customary property rights to be recognised and allow them due process—but to amend Te Ture Whenua Maori Act to allow customary rights to be recognised without a transfer to fee simple title and to require negotiation over rights of reasonable public access. In that way we could recognise mana whenua guarantee public access and meet the needs of all New Zealanders. I would be more confident that public access would remain and that the foreshore and seabed would remain in New Zealand hands if it is left in Maori collective ownership rather than in the hands of the Crown. We only have to remember the fourth Labour Government to know what happens to national assets that are left in the hands of the Crown. We all know what is going on.  
Russell Fairbrother told us that this legislation is not a land confiscation and that it is just a codification of customary rights. I believe that the member was being duplicitous when he said that because it is pretty obvious that a whole heap of Maori land was stolen by the use of “legal codification” in the past. That loss of Maori land is not and cannot be rectified by tossing the tangata whenua a few crumbs. Dover Samuels said that if Parliament had intended the Maori Land Court to look at the foreshore and seabed it would have called Te Ture Whenua Maori Act the “Te Ture Whenua Maori Foreshore and Seabed Act”. But I am surprised that the member seems to have the view that only those rights defined by the Crown are legitimate rights. I would not have thought that the member would take that kind of view. I would have thought he would recognise that one of the important points of the Court of Appeal decision was its recognition of customary rights that pre-existed the assertion of the right of governorship by the Crown.  
Russell Fairbrother also said that property rights should not be determined by the colour of one’s skin and other things. That is quite right. What we are talking about is property rights that are determined by kinship. We all recognise that. I have a right to inherit property that my parents leave to me and that is a property right determined by kinship. We are talking about a similar kind of thing but this bill removes property rights on the basis of ethnicity. As the Hon Richard Prebble and other members of this Committee have said this bill removes property rights from Maori on the basis that they are Maori. It takes away customary property rights under common law but it leaves untouched property rights under the Torrens fee simple title system which pertains to land owned by Pakeha and others. So as has been said this is a racist law. It is specifically designed to target Maori and no other people.  
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Rubbish! 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Of course it is. This is really about the inability of the Crown to deal with the concept of collective ownership based not on Crown grant but on tikanga Maori.  
It is curious that other countries seem to be able to deal with that issue. Canada has jurisprudence around indigenous forms of collective ownership but in this country we seem to be simply incapable of dealing with the issue because the Crown is absolutely paranoid about losing control and power. Exactly the same desire to maintain control has been behind the Government’s attacks on the Supreme Court. We saw the comments by Trevor Mallard that were reported in the newspaper today criticising the merit of the judges who sit on the Supreme Court. I think that the Court of Appeal decision on the case that resulted in this legislation made when those same judges were on the Court of Appeal is exactly what is behind those comments. We have the courts making decisions that are uncomfortable and inconvenient for the Government. The only recourse that the Government has is to attack their credibility—to undermine the courts and to question their merit and competence. That behaviour is totally opposed to the conventions we have on the separation of powers. It is totally unacceptable. The Government needs to have a good hard look at itself. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the title of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. This is a bill that vests the foreshore and seabed in the Crown in order to give all New Zealanders the right of access to the foreshore and seabed. It is clearly a means of protecting the rights of all New Zealanders. New Zealand First has shown leadership and strength on this issue and I must congratulate my colleague Dail Jones on that. He has done a lot of work and spent many many hours through to midnight and beyond working on it. New Zealand First has ensured that there is one law for all New Zealanders and that everyone in New Zealand has the right of access to the foreshore and seabed. It is in Crown ownership for that very reason.  
I have sat in the Chamber and listened to National Party and ACT members waffle and dribble on about what is wrong with this bill. There have been desperate attempts by them to try to discredit it. But every time that those members have stood up they have illustrated that they do not understand this bill. They have got up and tried to discredit it simply because they do not understand it. How many times over the 48 hours that we have been debating this bill has the bill been described to them in one-syllable words? And yet they still do not understand it; they have not been able to get to grips with it. I would like to make sure that the lights are turned on as it is a wee bit dim over the National Party members who have failed to understand this bill. Either they have not bothered to read it or they do not understand the way it is written and the way it protects the rights of all New Zealanders to have access to the foreshore and seabed.  
National has continued in a desperate attempt to try to find something wrong with the bill but it has come up with weak flimflam examples. When National had an opportunity to show that it really supported the foreshore and seabed and particularly the Bayswater Marina it voted against the Supplementary Order Paper that came before the Committee to protect and support the Bayswater Marina decision. Therefore National has shown that it has no interest in anything whatsoever except to sell up the foreshore and seabed. National wants the Bayswater Marina to be in private ownership. It wants to sell it off to anybody and particularly to overseas buyers. That does not help anybody and it certainly does not help Maori. All that National wants to do is to help the wealthy and to sell that marina to them—particularly to overseas investors. Therefore Maori and all New Zealanders would lose everything. This bill has ensured that the marina will not be sold to anyone—it will not be sold either overseas or locally.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It’s a great bill. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: It is a great bill and New Zealand First is proud that we have spent so much time on getting it right. We have shown leadership— 
Dail Jones 
: Can we fix it? 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: I am being asked whether we could fix it. We have shown that we could fix it and New Zealand First has fixed it. Yes we can fix it. New Zealand First has fixed it; we have shown that we can fix it.  
On another note I want to make sure that National understands that the part of the bill that deals with the Resource Management Act has clearly made decisions under that Act a lot clearer. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Before I call the next member I have a correction to make to votes. I advise that the results were not correctly announced on the votes on the questions that Part 6 as amended be agreed to that schedule 1 as amended be agreed to and that schedule 4 as amended be agreed to 
. 
 In each case the result was Ayes 66 and Noes 54 not Ayes 76 and Noes 44. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 This will be good. Members have asked for the great debater to come to the Chamber. I have heard the call and here I am. Mahara Okeroa took a call; at last he has found his tongue. Unfortunately he is a lion in the Chamber but on the marae he is a mouse. Where was he when his people really needed him? Where was he when his people were asking for due process? He was not at home then. The great shame about this whole bill is that it did not have to happen. It is all premised around a Court of Appeal decision that led some people to say that Maori would have ownership of the foreshore and seabed. If cool heads had prevailed and if people had taken the time to read that judgment they would have understood that that was never stated in the first place. But we have a poll-driven Government that thought because that was the public perception it would sneak this bill through Parliament in undue rude haste.  
I say to the Maori caucus that it has changed its tune now. I can remember when the Labour Maori MPs were out on the streets of this country saying that they would not vote for this legislation and would not do dirty backroom deals. That is the great shame of the Maori caucus. That is the way history will remember those members. That is the way they will be reported on the streets of this country today tomorrow next week and the weeks and years after that.  
The great shame of it all is that people like Winston Peters have put their name to this deal. Winston Peters is a man who was nourished in the bosom of the National Party. He did all his training with it. He spent the formative years of his political career in the National Party being groomed for bigger and better things. And what has he done? Winston Peters has ruined that distinguished career by having this millstone around his neck. He will have on his tombstone the words: “Here lies a politician who sold the farm for a few cheap votes.” I can understand people like Michael Cullen doing that because that is all he has ever known. But guys like Winston Peters and the New Zealand First members whom I have some respect for ought to know better than to do that.  
New Zealanders are being dispossessed by stealth. [ 
Interruption 
] The member will get his chance. They are now being told that everything is OK because the issue has been fixed. Well it has not been fixed. Naughty dirty backroom deals have been done so that New Zealanders can be dispossessed. We are told that ancestral connection has been taken out of this bill. That is an absolute nonsense. Those words may have been taken out—they were too controversial for the Government and the weak members of the Maori caucus. But members of the National Party who have read the bill—who have looked at what has taken place—know that put into the Resource Management Act now is a sneaky dirty little process whereby people can be dispossessed at will. And the Government does not even have to go to the public. It can just sign away by cheque after cheque people’s traditions and ancestry. People in this country deserve better leadership and better governance than they are getting from the likes of Michael Cullen and his cohorts.  
I can tell members something else. Everyone talks about the Port of Timaru people being happy. Well new clause 100 does not take care of that issue. People from the Port of Timaru have called me and said they still worried about it. They have said the Government has not thought the issue out at all and have asked me how they can grow the port if they do not have certainty. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 It is a privilege to take a brief call on the provisions we are debating which are the title and commencement clauses. I dare say that members will be aware that I have been listening to this debate since it began earlier this week but I have decided now that I should make my contribution and have it recorded. My prevarications at the very beginning of this process some months back may have had people wondering what I was up to and whether I would change my mind again. The answer is yes to the latter. 
This is one of those bills that has sorely tested many if not all members of this Parliament. It has altered the landscape of personal relationships in some respects between members of this Parliament. I acknowledge that in some instances I too have felt that way. 
I expressed to my caucus earlier in the year that I wished to abstain on the first reading of the bill. I had reservations then but I was not quite sure exactly what they were. They revolved around the issue of access to the judicial process that Maori in this instance had pursued—which of course ended up in a Court of Appeal decision. I have now accepted that the Government was put between a rock and a hard place on a decision it had to make about fee simple title particularly regarding the foreshore and seabed that was not encompassed within Te Ture Whenua Maori Act or the ambit of the Maori Land Court—which could really grant only fee simple title if any grant were to be made at all. 
If we are to be a nation that is proud of moving forward like two people but as one then that has to be practised through important founding leading legislation such as this. In my support for this bill I acknowledge the contributions I have heard so far from all sides of the Chamber—yes we still have a third reading debate to occur—that outline members’ particular arguments and points of view. But I have to say that it has been absolutely disappointing to hear the shallow fact-less arguments that have come from the Opposition with regard to this legislation. After 18 months of going through the legislation one would have thought that although Opposition members claimed they had had only an hour or two to get their heads around the Supplementary Order Papers etc. they might have come up with more substantial arguments. 
I am proud of the Labour Party and its Maori caucus. I am certainly grateful and proud that the Rt Hon Winston Peters and New Zealand First have shown leadership in this debate and in this argument. They have made a decision that will provide greater certainty than we ever would have had if any from other than this Labour Government were sitting on the Treasury benches. 
Given the circumstances under which we had to work the country can be grateful that we have come to what I think is an amicable conclusion in order to bring the country to rest on this important and vital issue. I do not believe as a Maori that we will be completely written off as some in this Committee have purported will be the case. The facts do not stack up when we hear the arguments from this side of Chamber compared with the arguments from the opposite side. We are moving in the right direction. I have only great credit to bestow upon the members of both my caucus and the New Zealand First caucus who have seen fit to progress this legislation. 
It must be noted that the National Opposition has been caught on the back foot. It would have been really good to have heard something from its leader. Unfortunately we were not privileged to hear that—it was given to the mouthpieces. National members have done an awful job so far of defending their point of view but I respect that that is all they are capable of. God help us if they return to this side of the Chamber after the next election. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call to give my last comments in this debate—comments on clause 2 which relates to what will be the commencement date of this legislation if it passes through its third reading today. Before I do so I offer a few comments of caution to New Zealand First and in particular to Brent Catchpole. He made his last speech with a great euphoric rush of blood to the head in being able to say: “We fixed it.” I say some words of caution: if the member claims credit for fixing it he will not be able to get away from taking responsibility for things if they go wrong. 
This morning there has already been a violent attack upon the Prime Minister’s electorate office. Many in New Zealand hope and pray that that is the extent of what will take place around the country. We condemn that action we believe there is no excuse for it and we urge New Zealanders to show restraint and patience on this issue. But it is an indication of the depth of feeling that exists over this legislation and of the amount of concern about the process. New Zealand First should be very cautious about taking all the credit because the blame in that regard will rest squarely with its members if they do so. 
I suggest the commencement date be postponed to some extent because there is a need—and I again urge the Government to take my suggestion—for communication to go out to the four corners of our country to explain the changes that have occurred in this legislation so that people may get on board with what the legislation is really doing and may not get caught up in all the mistruths and half-truths that have been shared around. 
I also want to make some comments as local government spokesperson for United Future about the effects of this legislation on local government particularly in regard to the new statutory right of access. I think we all welcome the fact that that right is now being enshrined in our statutes but I have some concerns about it. I asked questions in the select committee and I did not get a full response.  
Firstly I hope there is no need for a mad scramble by our local authorities to review their by-laws in regard to access to foreshore and beaches over the summer because of this new statutory right which is much broader than what has been in place or been understood prior to this legislation. I just hope local governments are not suddenly thrown into a flap by having to review their by-laws in order to contain issues that may arise from this new statutory right for all New Zealanders—issues not just of foot access but also of four-wheel drive access and everything else that may flow from that. 
Secondly local authorities will of course have a lot more work to do in order to handle what is coming through in this legislation. I hope they are given time to completely absorb it all and prepare for it. I therefore suggest that a deferment of the commencement would be wise to give the Government an opportunity to take up my suggestions for communication and to give local government some respect as well as an opportunity to get ready to handle this legislation as it comes through. Local authorities were put under incredible pressure when the Prostitution Reform Act was passed and they had to go into a mad flap over by-laws and so on. I hope that will not be the case under this legislation. With that I conclude my comments in this debate which has been robust and enjoyable.  
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 It has been quite interesting listening to the last few speakers. I was thankful that the bloke with the nice-looking hat came in to support our tuahine because she has been here by herself. But he has gone away again like the leader of that group who is not here. It was fascinating in the sense of— 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I understand that members cannot refer to whether other members are here in the Chamber. I ask the member to withdraw that remark. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is correct. Certainly one cannot refer to members being absent. I ask Mr Horomia to withdraw that remark. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I withdraw and apologise. The member’s overview was fascinating in the context of how this is relevant to overseas countries that have different treaties a different economy and different circumstances—such as what happened in Canada. The myth of trying to correlate that with what is happening here—with the doom merchants and the people at the extremes believing that international practices will save us—is a whole lot of hogwash. It is fascinating to those who know the history of what happened in the settlements in Canada.  
I listened to the mumbling muppet who mentioned issues around a weak Labour 
Maori caucus. I will tell members about the Maori caucus in this Government; I will tell them about the courage of this Maori caucus. We are at an all-time low in unemployment. Who did that? This country did. If members want to talk about other countries why has our ranking in the OECD accelerated? Who did that? This country did. We have got Maori Television going. Who did that? The Maori caucus did along with this Government. In the last 5 years we have doubled tertiary education 
participation by Maori people. Who did that? We did it along with the wananga the universities and especially our young demographic. That is the reality that is happening around all of this.  
Every reasonable historian knows that after 200 years as a settled society a clanking happens—a hump starts to appear in terms of the tensions and strains of contemporary times. That is what is happening here. Who created the impact and effects of the labour market? Our party did along with the Maori caucus. Who has a Maori language strategy with the aim that within 25 years every Maori whanau in this country will speak their language well? This Maori caucus has. Who amended the legislation on tax issues around lands? This Government did.  
I do not hear about all of 
that. We hear all about the extremes. People want to lock us down in the dungeons of doom and gloom and keep us in the deficit and dependency mode. That is the great thing that is coming out of the prattle from those on the opposite side of the Chamber. They say: “I have Maori friends and 
” 
—some of them— 
“ 
I actually married one of them but don’t give them any more than what they’ve ever had. Don’t dare do that because we’re used to conquest we’re used to controlling and we’re used to utilising power at the negative extreme.” That member knows about that.  
I say with great pride that this Government has made some of the most dramatic changes and turn-rounds in Maori development in this period of time. That is why I am here being counted. I will be counted against all those things. As that member reminds me it is no fun sitting in front of the hikoi going around the hui and getting chastised for it and knowing that my whanau name will be alongside this. But at least I will stand up and with pride say that it is the right thing to do at the right time. In contemporary times this is the way to go forward.  
My friend here talked about Churchillian issues. This is Herculean; it is enormous. We have made the right decision. My learned friend the chairman of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee 
and those who were honest enough to stand the heat took it on the chin. We will be here and we will be counted along with New Zealand First. I am really thankful that those members have come in at this stage to help us finish passing the legislation. I respect that so kia ora to them. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: You’re desperate! 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: If we are desperate then I do not know what it is like to be polling at 1 percent. We know where we are. I understand if the member translates that into desperateness. 
The Resource Management Act is a fascinating thing. Where I come from people could dig a long drop. That is the fascinating thing. A lot of our young people do not even know what a long drop is anymore. People did not have to go to the council and ask for permission; they dug the hole they moved the toilet and they had it there. Now they have to go to the council and ask: “Can I please build a long drop?”. What a load of nonsense! 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 That was a very interesting speech from the Minister of Maori Affairs. I am very pleased that he is proud of what he sees as his achievements. That is important in Parliament. We as a nation want our Minister of Maori Affairs to do well but he cannot be the judge of the outcome. The people in our democracy will judge that outcome. His people will weigh up the merits of what they think he has delivered on the one hand and what he has cost them on the other hand. When every iwi that came to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee gave a very clear position of what they expected when hui after hui around the country—I was at the first one the Hauraki declaration and the Minister was there too—gave a very clear message he did not listen. He and most of the Maori Labour caucus members did not listen. Their people will judge them for that. Their constituents will judge them for that. That is the great advantage of our open democracy. It is no good members coming here proclaiming their achievements beating their chests and saying how great they are. It is the people who will make that judgment. I believe they will judge the Minister of Maori Affairs very harshly because he has certainly been found wanting. 
 The comment has been made in this debate that the Government was between a rock and a hard place. Those members are trying to say that they had no choice. That is simply not so. The Government had numerous alternative options it could have proceeded with that would have delivered a far more harmonious outcome for this country. Let us review some of those options. Firstly if the Government was not happy with the Court of Appeal judgment it could have appealed. It was a very clear judgment that said in terms of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act which was passed by the National Government in 1993 the right for the Maori Land Court with extended jurisdiction to issue title over the foreshore and seabed to Maori applicants did exist—possibly in rare and remote instances. So it was not as if there was a great big threat. The judgment said that it may exist based on customary rights and customary title.  
What the Government could have done if it believed in due process—and there were two options actually with due process—was appeal that decision to the Privy Council. Did it? No it did not. Why? Because the Government was so determined to do away with the Privy Council—there was a lot of rhetoric about doing away with the Privy Council—it could not bear the shame and embarrassment of taking a case to the Privy Council. So it did not pursue that option. The Government claims that it was surprised by the Court of Appeal decision. That claim does not stand up to scrutiny either. Judge HetaHingston had made his decision on the Marlborough case—the NgatiApa case—some 5 or 6 years earlier. It had been running through all the court processes in the High Court and the Court of Appeal and the Government knew it was coming. Was it so arrogant that it just assumed it would win even though the initial decision clearly said that there was serious doubt? Yes the Government was that arrogant and when it received that decision what did it do? It just cancelled due process before our courts. That is a very serious issue. The Government did not even take it to the Privy Council. Perhaps it should at least have taken that step but it did not do that.  
So the Government could have taken the case to the Privy Council. Alternatively it could have just said: “Yes let’s look at this. What sorts of situations are we talking about where property rights might exist on the foreshore and seabed based on customary title?”. Those situations would be rare and remote. If the Government wanted to acknowledge that that was the due process but in the public good then chose to expropriate that that is always a Government’s right. Governments expropriate private property all the time and they always have. We have a Public Works Act mostly for good reason—not always but mostly—but of course the Government has to pay compensation. That would have been a due process. If the Government had gone through the courts and found that yes indeed based on customary title a very few clear Maori titles did exist the Government could have stumped up. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 What a pleasure it is to follow a member like Ken Shirley! He is erudite he is intelligent and he is totally wrong when he comes to interpreting this legislation. What an interesting debate members have had. In this House there are the two extremes yet neither leader of those parties has taken a call. It is very important that the leader of the National Party has not come and taken a call and the leader of the Maori Party has not taken a call either. Both members have sat very very quietly. However I will go back to the title.  
A title should always leave the reader in no doubt as to what this legislation is about and this title definitely leaves the reader in no doubt. This bill sets out to vest ownership of the foreshore and the seabed in the Crown on behalf of all New Zealanders and it protects customary rights for everyone. This legislation achieves what New Zealand First set out as our position in June last year. It is fair to all New Zealanders irrespective of race and all are treated equally before the law—not like some of the speeches we have heard here today and last night.  
Nobody is disadvantaged with this legislation and Maori have lost nothing. This new law confirms what everybody has already believed—that the Crown owns the foreshore and the seabed and the existing situation is exactly how it should be. It means that the foreshore and seabed can never be sold off to anybody. It is really important too that the customary rights of all New Zealanders are protected. That is significant and only New Zealand First has pushed for that. The process is outlined to ensure that that is very clear. This legislation ensures that all New Zealanders are treated equally. There has been a lot of grandstanding over this particular legislation and that is really sad. The other parties should put aside their perceived differences and act in the interests of all New Zealanders. By the time the Christmas and the New Year holidays come all New Zealanders will still be enjoying the beaches and the sea with their children and their families— 
Hon Member 
: And their grandchildren. 
BARBARA STEWART 
: —and their grandchildren—in exactly the same way that we have done for many many years and they will be wondering what all the fuss was about. We will be supporting this legislation totally and we cannot see what all that fuss is about. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. We are interested to know what the proportion situation is with regard to speeches at the present time. We know that the Chair keeps good records. It is of interest to us because we have noticed that normally after this period of time the Government starts moving closure motions. But for some reason it has been strangely silent although it has put up two members it would appear to filibuster its own bill. Can you give us an indication of how many—[ 
Interruption 
]  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I remind the member that the member on his feet is raising a point of order. There will be silence. [ 
Interruption 
] Does the member want to speak to the point of order? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have not finished. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has made his point. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No I have not made my point. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I say to Mr Brownlee that I have ruled that he has made his point. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I understand the member’s point of order to be that he wants to know when the Government will move the closure motion—despite the fact that those members were going to fight this with all the fibre of their being. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No—  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I am signifying that we have members who are yet to speak.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: What I would say to the member is that there are many criteria the Chairperson takes into account. One of them is obviously proportionality. That will be dealt with as it is always dealt with—in a proper and fair way. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have answered the member’s question. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes you have—I accept that and that is fine. I am asking for further clarification. It is interesting to know whether that proportionality or the decisions of the Chair are affected by the ongoing contributions from the Government. It was surprising to us that having spoken very early in this part the Hon Parekura Horomia just two speeches ago decided to give another contribution that brought in I have to say quite new material. I want to know whether the opportunity to respond to that in a proportionate way will be part of the Chair’s consideration.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have already answered the question. It is taken into account. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I want to respond to the Minister of Maori Affairs and to some of the outburst that he gave members just before. He spoke about his deep care and concern for Maori and about his Maori caucus’s fearless advocation on behalf of Maori.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Advocacy. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well advocacy then—I thank Mr Peters. In a former life Mr Peters was a primary school teacher. He has made little progress. We know about those primary school teachers. They always gave that stuck-up snooty look to old technical teachers like me.  
As for the Labour Party everyone knows that it has always hated the worker. It has always despised the worker and I cannot help thinking that that same attitude came through towards Maori in the speech of the Minister of Maori Affairs. When I look at this bill I see the extraordinary constraints that the Government has put round Maori when it comes to customary rights. I am moved to say— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Make up your mind. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —that the only people in this country—I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Firstly where is the clock? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Continue with the point of order. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: If a person takes a point of order it should not come off that person’s allocated speaking time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: 
We attend to that. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I do hope you will listen very very carefully to some of the comments made in interjections. I am particularly sensitive about this because of my ejection from the Chamber yesterday over exactly this sort of issue. I do not want to have to go through the same performance to highlight some of the extreme bad manners being exhibited by other members in this Chamber—particularly members who know that they are skating on thin ice have weak arguments and have very little else to offer the Committee.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I thank the member for his point of order. There have been lots of interjections on both sides of the Chamber. Members have indicated that they want a robust debate and I will rule accordingly.  
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am taking a very simple position. We notice that in this bill there is now a huge court process around the establishment of customary rights. Something National is very proud of is that under the National Government customary rights were those that were 
accepted to be so because they were demonstrated to be so. We included those in treaty settlements without any difficulty and I cannot see why Maori now have to go through this extraordinary proof process around customary rights.  
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Don’t have to. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I can see Dover Samuels scratching his head and saying that it is all right and that they do not have to. Maori cannot have those rights recognised if they do not do that. I think the problem with this bill is firstly that it is unfair to most New Zealanders and is therefore racist. It is racist on two counts. It apparently makes Maori the only people in this country who can have customary rights but it then states that they can have those rights only if they are ratified by a court. For the rest of us there is 
this sham process available that I dare say will never be used successfully—and the Government knows that.  
Going around telling New Zealanders that it has protected the foreshore and seabed in perpetuity is also a gross misrepresentation of the actual truth in this bill. Under clauses 112 and 115 the Government reserves for itself the absolute right to dispose of the seabed and foreshore as it sees fit. 
The worst thing is that the Government has said that it trusts the public’s interest in the foreshore and seabed being in the hands of the Minister of Conservation—and everyone knows that that means it will be in the hands of the Director-General of Conservation. He is an unelected public official who anonymously goes about administering at this stage over a third of this country’s land mass. When we add in this new requirement to look after the seabed and foreshore it is a very substantial increase on that amount. That is just plain unacceptable.  
We are seeing from the Minister of Maori Affairs this pathetic cry of how well the Government has done for Maori. We are in some of New Zealand’s best economic times and that is entirely due to the National Government of the late 1990s. We now have low Maori unemployment 
;  
well is that not just a core requirement of politicians?  
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Concede it! 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I ask Mr Horomia to take another call. I bet he will not. There is not a chance. He will stay seated on his backside. [ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. That was an extraordinary outburst from the other side of the Chamber. Some of what the Minister of Maori Affairs was saying to me was personally very offensive. Much as the Prime Minister was deeply hurt by the Nuremburg comment the other day I was too of course. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has taken offence. I ask Mr Horomia to stand withdraw and apologise for that remark. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I have been sitting here just pondering on the path that this legislation has taken over the past 18 months finally to get to this point. It occurs to me that the real crime the greatest hoax the biggest fraud the most unforgivable act of deception because it misled because it promoted a falsity that created a mirage of ownership and because it tantalised the most vulnerable and the most impoverished with a promise of unlimited wealth and that was fuelled by underlying greed wrapped in a pretence of tikanga and carried on a wave of emotion was the promotion of the lie that Maori owned the foreshore and the seabed. Why does that vex me so? Because from that falsity that misrepresentation has been born a festering broth that has incited racism from Maori and toward Maori that does New Zealand no good whatsoever. 
Perhaps the thing that hurts the most is that it will all sadly end in tears. It may well be that it takes 3 years for some of my extended whanaunga to come to the final realisation that the belief the trust and the faith that they have placed in the gravy train conductors of the Maori Party the 21st century missionaries of the United Future party and the intergalactic travellers of the Green Party have led them totally up the garden path. I have to say that probably some of the most— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I will remind members again to be silent when a point of order is being heard. 
Metiria 
Turei 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I take personal offence at being described as “intergalactic” by that member in his speech and I ask that he be required to withdraw and apologise for that offensive derogatory remark. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I think we are starting to get into some difficulty. This is a robust Chamber. There are comments that are offensive which we all sometimes make but there is also a level of language that is representative of people’s description of what they think people’s positions and views are. Describing somebody in terms of being an intergalactic traveller suggests he or she is out in some different area of the ether. Whether or not one regards it as offensive I do not think one can make a case in this House that it is an offensive remark of the sort that requires a withdrawal and apology. We in this Parliament will find ourselves with the shortest  
Oxford Dictionary 
 in the world if we are not careful. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I think Dr Cullen is correct and we have had some marginal calls at times and Mr Prebble certainly pointed that out yesterday. I really do not think that that comment is one that requires a withdrawal. 
RON MARK 
: Thank you Madam Chairperson and thank you Dr Cullen for your wisdom. I have to say that many of my whanaunga are going to wake up in 3 years’ time. It may well be that the Maori Party and even perhaps the Green Party have more representatives here in this House after this next election. That may well be the case. But I predict that the realisation will come home to all New Zealanders after they have had their holidays in the sun on beaches and rocky foreshores up and down the country over the next few months that much of what they have been hearing is lies deception and falsity. We as a nation will thank the wisdom the fortitude and the determination of the two parties involved who brought this legislation to the House. 
I say to my colleagues in the National Party that I heard all their arguments here. They complained that there were too many words in the bill that it had too many pages that it was too long and too difficult— 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I waited for a minute. The member used the word “lies” and I hoped he was not referring to any member in this Chamber because that would be disorderly but his subsequent words gave the very clear impression that that expression had been aimed in the direction of members. If so I believe that offence could be taken and the member should be asked to withdraw. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I certainly did not take that remark in that context. It was taken in the context of the member’s description of the legislation. I listened very carefully. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I just ask for consistency because only yesterday in the Chamber—and I have the  
Hansard 
 in front of me—you ruled the word “fib” out of order. That was not said in respect of anybody else. You said it was an inappropriate word. Can you explain to me why when a National member uses the word “fib” it is ruled out of order and I am required to withdraw but when Mr Ron Mark used the word “lies” because he happens to be supporting the— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I will explain in simple terms to the member. Very simply if a member uses that term in relation to another member it will be ruled out. If a member uses it in relation to legislation as it has been used throughout the debate—and that has been clarified several times—it is perfectly in order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is it a new point of order? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Yes it is. I need you to clarify for us whether a member of the National Party talking about the legislation and the way it is being presented and suggesting that there are fibs being told is different from a member of the New Zealand First Party which supports the bill saying that the Opposition has at some points represented the bill in a way that could be construed as lies. It is the same thing. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The distinction is a very simple one. It is a question of who is telling the fibs. If it is a member of this House then the accusation is out of order. I listened to Mr Mark very carefully and what he said was not in the context of members of the House. If it had been it would clearly have been out of order. The comment yesterday was in fact in the context of members of the House but in any case it cannot be relitigated now—it is in the past. I suggest therefore that the rule is quite clear.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Ron Mark referred to lies and other issues then said he now wanted to talk to his colleagues in the National Party which clearly bisected what he was saying before from what he was about to say. They heard that. But my point of order is that I am sick and tired of the number of points of order being raised by this petulant National Party time after time that are without any merit whatsoever. I have never seen such juvenile behaviour in my whole time in Parliament. Those members sit over there not knowing the Standing Orders or what is right or fair and raise countless points of order when we are talking. We are totally sick of it. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Madam Chair I think I indicated to you in the first place that I had waited because I thought there was some doubt as to whether there was a reference to members. Far be it from me to offer you guidance but I think the normal course in such circumstances has been for presiding officers to ask the member whether he or she was referring to members of the House and if an assurance is given that he or she was not then that is accepted. I was hoping that Mr Mark was not referring to a member of the House. If you were to avail yourself of that facility Madam Chair I am sure Mr Mark could put the matter right for us.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Mark had indicated to me but that was not required as I had heard it very clearly. I say to Mr Peters on his contribution to the point of order that yes this has been a robust debate and yes there have been a lot of unnecessary calls for points of order that have not been points of order. 
RON MARK 
: Given the rather unacceptable and persistent interdictions on my speech which was clearly hitting a raw nerve in some areas I seek leave that my time be restarted.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is not. 
RON MARK 
: Thank you and I thank members. I have to say that that is the sort of thing one gets when one is rudderless—when one pledges to come and fight a piece of legislation with every sinew of one’s soul bones and heart yet sits in the Chamber and does not take one call. In my time in the military we always taught people a few things and they have been demonstrated by the courage and fortitude behind the passage of this legislation: firstly that one leads by example; secondly that one does not ask soldiers to do anything that one is not prepared to do oneself; and thirdly that one always puts one’s troops first and encounters the most dangerous situations with them for them by them and at precisely the same time that combat has been engaged. I have to say that the reason that certain parties in this House lose their way get distracted and end up acting like petulant little schoolboys is that they do not have a leader. I have only one plea for the former great National Party and that is to “Bring back Bill!”—“Bring back Bill!”. I know that had Bill English been sitting in that chair he would have fought this legislation tooth and nail down to the wire with every sinew every fibre and every drop of blood in his body. But that is not what we have seen here in the last couple of days is it? 
To my colleagues on my left—who are normally politically speaking on the right—ACT I say that I am impressed. The most consistent competent argument and debate through these many hours in opposition to the bill has come from the ACT party. But the tragedy is that that is irrelevant because ACT will not be here next year. 
Then I come to my dearly beloved whanaunga in the Maori Party. There was not one sound syllable utterance murmur or mutter from that great party which came to this House with placards and banners waving and flying in the wind and with 10-foot photographs held high. It was going to fight the bill all the way to its doomy gloomy grave. Not a sound not a mutter not a murmur not a syllable has passed through its member’s lips and those lips are being paid $100000 a year for doing zilch—nothing. Well done! 
Turning to the United Future party and the Greens I ask them to spare us the indignity. Maori have put up with and tolerated the socialist rantings and the favours of missionaries for decades and decades—for 200 years. We do not need any more. The missionaries have had their day. They should go to Africa and find some indigenous people who need their help because we do not. Maori are quite capable of articulating for themselves their own views and deciding among themselves what they want. What they want is what is right for all New Zealanders and they do not want to be misled they do not want to have their hands held they do not want warm fuzzies and cuddlies and they certainly do not need to communicate with outer space on that frequency any more. 
 I am going to deal with a couple of inconsistencies and some of the arguments put up by my National Party friends. I have heard Dr Nick Smith’s arguments regarding access and I take on board his comments that this issue has affected him in his Nelson area. But I have never heard a word about the travesty that has been going on in Riversdale ever since I was 11 years old. Today that iron fence that goes right down into the breakers down to the low-tide mark that is made out of railway irons and that was owned and put up by Mr Meredith still stands there in testament to as a monument to the days when he used to stand on that beach on that foreshore and stop us Maori and Pakeha from gathering kai moana off that beach. There has not been a word said against him! 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
:  
It is sobering to reflect on how it is that we are debating the Foreshore and Seabed Bill because it arises out of judicial activism of the Court of Appeal. If the Court of Appeal had followed the course that has been generally followed for judges who seek substantive law change then these issues that have confronted us in urgency for the last 2 days would never have arisen. What has happened in the past where the judges have found that the law is unsatisfactory is that they have quite simply said that the law requires change and that that is a matter for the legislature. But they chose not to exercise that option and that is why with others I have expressed doubt about the wisdom of the new Supreme Court. The new court gives the judges the possibility of yielding to the temptation of judicial creativity. The law had been settled and well known for a number of years. It was crystal clear that the Crown owned the foreshore and the seabed.  
The Court of Appeal sought to meddle in that unwisely—very unwisely with the benefit of hindsight because it has plunged this House and this Committee into turmoil for almost 2½ years. So I say to members that the outcome of a process that we have embarked upon with this bill will be to raise the expectations both of Maori and non-Maori in such a way that those hopes will certainly not be realised—will certainly be dashed.  
Why do I say that? Well one looks at the threshold tests in Part 3 which we have debated clause by clause in the Committee stage. One looks at Part 4 which reeks of political correctness. This process that the Government has set in Part 4 to allow non-Maori groups to assert claims for customary rights is impossible. It is impossible of realisation. That is why as we talk about the title—the “Foreshore and Seabed Bill”—I suggest that it would be better named the “Floor Show and Seabed Bill.” because it is on any view a fiasco.  
Customary rights should have been recognised as they have been in the context of Treaty of Waitangi settlements. They should not be the subject of a process where the courts of record have to decide tricky and near-impossible issues of tikanga Maori against the background of showing uninterrupted possession since 1840. It is a wholly unsatisfactory circumstance. It has also in this Chamber pitted Maori against non-Maori. That is doubly unfortunate for no one should deny the strength and the need to preserve Maori culture and language. But we have moved on from that. We have moved on to a position of seeking to codify property rights.  
I listened with interest to what the chairman of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee Russell Fairbrother had to say on that issue. He saw this bill as simply being about the codifying of property rights. But it is far more than that. The codification process is not a process that will provide certainty. It will instead provide I think for all of us a degree of division that should surely have been avoided. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 Perhaps we might like to call this bill the “Anti-democracy Bill” because if there has been one atrocity committed by the Government in the last 6-8 months or even 18 months it is that the democratic process has been fundamentally undermined by everything that it has done to try to justify its enactment of unjust confiscatory legislation. First the Government went through a process of consultation hui. I went to a large number of those hui and I saw Michael Cullen treat those people who attended those hui—those large numbers of Maori who travelled great distances to get there—with absolute disdain. He told them that they were effectively ignorant and that their problem with Government policy was because they just did not understand. That is right. Michael Cullen says that Maori just do not get it because we do not know enough about it. He hides behind these great legal principles in trying to justify this wrongful action—in the face of the continual statements from kuia and kaumatua during the hui process that this was wrong.  
We remembered the previous confiscation. We have seen this all before. We know exactly what this is and we do not want to see it again in the 21st century. But Michael Cullen refused to understand and refused to acknowledge their experience and instead took an arrogant and paternalistic attitude.  
Then of course we had Trevor Mallard at one of the hui in Taranaki—one of the places where the worst atrocities in this country have been committed against Maori—telling them that it is their own fault—like the Minister of Maori Affairs—that Maori sell off their land and they need to be protected from themselves. It is an arrogant assumption that somehow we are still natives we are still savages and undeveloped cannot be responsible for our own assets and own lands and we cannot be responsible for the good of the nation.  
In the face of all of the generosity that Maori have expressed over the last 150 years and the amount of natural heritage that Maori have contributed to this country as a whole in that state of generosity Trevor Mallard stood there and told these people in Taranaki that it was their own fault.  
Then we went into the select committee process which again was an incredible farce. It was amazing that 4000 people can make submissions and 2000 of them wanted to be heard yet this Government along with New Zealand First which trails behind obediently doing exactly as it is told refused to allow the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee the time that it needed to hear those submissions. Two thousand people asked to be heard because they had something to contribute to the democratic process of this nation. They were not even written to. They had no response from the select committee because the Government and New Zealand First members refused to allow them to be written to and thanked for their efforts to contribute to this country’s democratic process. They did not even get a response.  
Of those 2000 submitters 200-odd got heard. At one point we had six iwi from the west coast of the North Island from Taranaki all the way down to Otaki who travelled to Wellington to be heard by the select committee and what did they get? They got 20 minutes between six iwi to hear their very real concerns as coastal people to whom this legislation has a direct effect on their lives. The select committee would not even give them the time to be heard individually. There was 20 minutes between six iwi and on and on it went. 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 Te tiamana o Ngati Kahungunu iwi nau mai haere mai tena koe tena koe tena koe. 
[ 
To the chairman of the Ngati Kahungunu people welcome welcome and greetings to you 
.]  
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
EDWIN PERRY 
: I know this is a wide-ranging debate and I shall touch on various issues with regard to the legislation. Firstly I shall talk about access. A lot of comments have been made to the effect that Maori will stop people from going to the beach this summer. I want to enlighten everybody by saying that in the Wairarapa that is not the case. It has not been the case. A number of Pakeha have come to my office to tell me that they have been stopped from going to the beach by their own people. Maori have also been stopped from going to the beach. An example of that is at Riversdale where I own a beach house. Our people were virtually conned out of some land there. Quite frankly a reserve was taken from them by using measures such as telling them that the land would be no good to develop. What happened was that the local farmer and the county council at the time colluded and bought the property off our people. Today half-million dollar properties are on that land. I talk about a prime piece of coastal land that is now worth a lot of money. Sure maybe some Maori may stop people from going to the beach this summer. However when Mahara Okeroa visits my moana this summer we will still drive down the beach and enjoy it as every other New Zealander would. I invite members from the National Party the ACT party the Green Party and my whanaunga MetiriaTurei from Papawai to experience the true kaitiakitanga put into this legislation by New Zealand First.  
I shall talk briefly about the customary rights of my hapu NgaiTumapuhiaarangi on the Wairarapa coast. A USA motivational speaker said at one stage: “Your time has come.” I believe that our hapu’s time has come to identify its customary right to the coastline within its boundary lines which is from the Whareama river to the Awhea river on the Wairarapa coast. What will my hapu have to do in order to be able to identify its customary rights or its claim to that piece of coastline? First it will have to put its claim to the Maori Land Court and then to the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Maori Affairs. Once it is validated the hapu will then have the customary right to that piece of coastline. I say to the Maori people that the Marine Reserves Bill sits somewhere gathering dust in the bowels of this building. But with the passing of this legislation our hapu will be able to claim its customary rights to the coastal boundary so now it will be able to quite easily negotiate the placing of marine reserves on a level playing field. Prior to this legislation going through the hapu really had an airy-fairy agreement for that to happen.  
I shall talk quickly about who started this issue. How did it start? Obviously it started in the Marlborough Sounds where there were 19 proposals from an iwi to gain access for mussel farming. In 1991 National included wahi tapu in the Resource Management Act as well—that allowed that to happen. In 1993 National passed the Act that enabled Maori to get fee simple title and ACT wants that to be kept in. Why? Because it wants to sell the foreshore and seabed off. That is no different from what National will do if it gets its hands on them. I tell Mr McCully that one good thing in this agreement is that New Zealand First has made it quite clear that that land will never be sold. I am happy about that.  
Here is a good one for the National Party. Over the last 18 months this bill went through the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee. What did National Party members say? They said that with Crown ownership and customary rights for Maori Maori did not get anything—Maori got nothing. What do they say now? There is a racial slur on this issue now that those members say Maori are getting everything. What is the problem with National? It has to make up its mind what it is doing. I can tell the National Party what a number of its members in the Wairarapa are saying. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I shall talk about the consistency of political parties’ positions on the foreshore and seabed issue. First I shall start with the Labour Party. The Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Michael Cullen has claimed that the Labour Party believes in Crown ownership for all New Zealanders and that access is guaranteed. Of course we on the Opposition side of the Chamber know that that is not a correct description of what the bill contains. We know that the way that was done was by buying off the Maori members of the Labour caucus with all kinds of derogations territorial customary rights orders customary rights orders provisions in the Resource Management Act and of course the treaty settlement provisions. I guess we will find out shortly that Nanaia Mahuta’s vote has been bought on the fact that Tainui will be getting title to the west coast harbours—just like the case of Lake Rotorua. National has drawn a line in the sand on this issue and we believe in a single simple principle. For the area of the public domain—if one will—that we all use we believe in Crown ownership on behalf of all New Zealanders. It should not be sold but should be kept for the public enjoyment of all New Zealanders irrespective of race.  
I guess that Labour at least has been honest. It has admitted its inconsistencies. On the other hand New Zealand First simply does not know that it is being inconsistent. New Zealand First goes up and down the country and makes a virtue of the fact that it says it believes in one law for all. I suppose that is true to the extent that this Parliament will be passing a single document so that all this law will be contained in a single Act. The trouble is that that Act will contain two separate laws: one for New Zealanders in general Maori and non-Maori alike and then a subset for Maori alone. How can that possibly meet the test of one law for all New Zealanders? I have to go through that issue because there was a simple approach. In fact the Prime Minister had it right 18 months ago as indeed did the Minister of Justice. Their initial reaction was in fact the correct reaction. It was to provide a confirmatory statute that would have stated Crown ownership—absolute ownership—on behalf of all New Zealanders. National said that it would support that.  
That was the Government’s initial reaction. It was only after the reaction of the Maori caucus to that position that it was changed. So the legislation went from a simple 1 or 2-page confirmatory bill which is what the Prime Minister had wanted to a 117-clause bill that provides Crown ownership territorial customary rights Maori reserves customary rights to be determined by the Maori Land Court customary rights before the High Court amendments to the Resource Management Act and of course specific clauses for treaty settlements. There are so many exceptions to the general principle of Crown ownership on behalf of all New Zealanders that that is now simply a sham.  
The Labour Government is quite happy with that—it is proud of it. On the other hand the New Zealand First Party has been fundamentally duped. When I hear Mr Mark and Mr Perry or indeed the leader of New Zealand First say that they have fixed the problem I know they have not. They have wrecked the law for New Zealanders. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Who broke it? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Those guys broke it by passing this law. New Zealand First has broken the law. That is what it has done—it has broken the law. I am sick and tired of hearing its members’ boasts which are based on a fundamental fallacy that they believe in one law for all. Their vote today will totally vacate that idea.  
I just want to pass on one point to members. We talked about customary rights and it is in our minority report. They are referred to in the existing legislation as mataitai and taiapure under the Fisheries Act 1996. We have always said that it is around those vehicles that one can protect customary rights as well as through the treaty settlements. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I start by paying a special tribute to my colleague Dail Jones because I believe he has done a tremendous job in working on the details of this legislation. When New Zealanders go to the beach this Christmas and sunbathe on the beach they will know that New Zealand First has secured that activity for New Zealanders for the rest of their lives and for the next generation. When New Zealanders collect tuatua from Tokerau Beach they will know that New Zealand First has secured that activity for future generations. When grandparents are down on the beach building sandcastles with their grandchildren they will know that those grandchildren’s grandchildren will be able to carry out that same activity—it will be uninterrupted—because of the stand that New Zealand First has taken with the Government on this issue.  
I want to talk about New Zealand First’s position since the Court of Appeal ruling. When that judgment was made we recognised that it was momentous and would have huge implications for New Zealand and its future. So firstly we made a statement of our position. We said that we believed that the foreshore and seabed should be secured for all New Zealanders in the ownership of the Crown but that customary rights mechanisms should be in place to enable those rights to be applied. I say to the National members that those customary rights derive from common law which is the “one law for all” that was brought into this country in 1840. The National members want to have one law for all but when the results of the application of the principle of one law for all do not suit them they do not want it—they want some other law. Customary rights come from common law rights and we need to ensure that within the mechanism of the law a way is found to recognise them.  
Second after the Court of Appeal ruling we made a deliberate decision to shut up. I defy anybody to find any statement made by a New Zealand First member from that time onwards because we realised that the situation had the potential to inflame the nation—which it did—if people were making statements that were incorrect. There has never been an issue that has been so poorly articulated by the media as this particular issue was. We said nothing because we knew that to say something wrong would inflame the situation. That was unlike a certain other party which made a certain speech that set out deliberately to divide this nation. That speech made at Orewa by the leader of the National Party set out to divide this nation. New Zealand First said no that was not the way we would go. We did our homework. We really did some work on the issue. I have to say that reading the appeal court judgment—and I doubt whether many MPs actually did that—was hard yacker for me. Some of the legal concepts in there were unusual for us and I had to go back to it and back to it asking myself what it was actually stating.  
What that judgment stated was that the law that was left for us for all New Zealanders by National actually meant that Oriental Bay could be sold into foreign ownership.  
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Nonsense! 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: It could be sold into foreign ownership; that is the law as it stands right here today. We could have had to go down and pay in order to go on to our beaches in New Zealand. Certainly something had to be done to fix that up. The first point is that Labour came to us and asked us whether we would help it to fix that situation and we said yes. The other point is that we must ask ourselves who broke it in the first place. National broke it. That is why we have had to come along and fix it. The law that was left behind by National is a law that allows for the alienation of the foreshore and seabed. I ask the Minister in the chair Dr Cullen whether I am right. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: That’s right. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: That is what stands at the moment. I cannot understand how National members can go out to the people of New Zealand and say they oppose a bill that will overcome that situation which is intolerable to most if not all New Zealanders.  
There is the point about people like myself not having the same degree of customary right as the indigenous people of New Zealand. I blame that on my ancestors because they came to New Zealand. If they had stayed in Ireland then I would have the same degree of customary right there as Maori people have in New Zealand. But actually I am glad my ancestors forsook some of that customary right back in Ireland and came to New Zealand because I would far rather be a citizen of New Zealand than of Ireland. We can still go and visit Ireland and it is nice to listen to the music. But the fact that has to be recognised is that customary rights come with age. 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 The Foreshore and Seabed Bill is one of those pieces of legislation that will raise incredibly the expectations of Maori only to see them dashed. It is appropriate in this call and I hope in the calls I will have as we move into the very late afternoon to talk briefly about the concept of what it is to be a Maori. It is not an issue that is easy to talk about; it is the sort of issue that strongly stirs people like Dover Samuels. But if we look at our community today we see it as one that is substantially intermingled and intermixed. 
In a constitutional setting the starting point—maybe the finishing point too—is the definition of Maori in the Electoral Act. “Maori” means a person of the Maori race of New Zealand and includes any descendant of such a person. I make the point that that definition was not always the definition. It is a definition from legislation passed in 1993. 
Prior to 1986 census definitions were based much more obviously on a concept of ancestry or biological make-up. In general terms the Maori population was defined as those with half or more Maori blood. That was the definition of Maori and Parliament enacted legislation to that effect. One such example is the Births and Deaths Registration Act of 1951 and at least in the period from 1951 to 1995 that was the law. The Maori population was defined as those with half or more Maori blood and at the 1981 census which I understand is the census from which most recent figures were kept only 6.9 percent of the population had half or more Maori blood. 
I suspect that the number of people now who can properly claim to be Maori in terms of the biological definition is perhaps in the order of 2 percent. What is the significance of that? We have heard from people like John Tamihere— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Who is your doctor? 
RICHARD WORTH 
: I will talk about my doctor in a moment—that Maori in the context of this bill seek to lay claim to perhaps 10 percent of the coastline. So 2 percent of the people are laying claim to 10 percent of the coastline; where is the justice in that?  
Some of the more noisy claimants for bounty have very strong non-Maori heritage. There are many examples in this Parliament. John Tamihere might be one. The Hon Tariana Turia is probably a really good example with her American father. What the Government is doing and what should be of concern to us all— 
Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I do not think it is for the member on his feet to be defining whakapapa that he knows nothing about. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: Speaking to the point of order Madam Chairperson I point out that that is obviously a debating point and not a point of order. It is an abuse of the process of the Committee to interrupt a member’s speech.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is quite correct; that is not a point of order. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: So where does the Foreshore and Seabed Bill take us? It is better described as the “Floorshow and Seabed Bill” because an absolute farce is being played out in a number of its parts. 
In Part 4 rights are given to non-Maori people Caucasian or European somehow to advance claims for customary title. How will they do that? I challenge Russell Fairbrother the chairman of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee to stand and explain how any group could possibly fit within the statutory test set in that part. The part has been deliberately designed to put up a smokescreen—a real smoke and mirrors deal—with no real possibility of such groups establishing those claims. 
I conclude as I started by saying that we should be truly concerned about this legislation. It has been rushed through Parliament. It has heightened Maori expectations and non-Maori resentment will continue to grow. 
If I have the leave of the House I am happy to talk about my doctorate and the processes that led to that award. I so seek leave. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is seeking leave for an extension of his speech. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
:  
All New Zealanders can go down to the beach this summer when this legislation has passed knowing that they will have no problems. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Even Arsenal supporters. 
PETER BROWN 
: Even Arsenal supporters can go down to the beach and wave the flag for the “Gunners” particularly after they have thumped Spurs 5-4. As a result of this legislation New Zealanders will sit on the beach enjoying their barbecues without this seabed and foreshore issue hanging over them. New Zealand First is exceedingly pleased that this legislation is about to pass. It has largely occurred because this House has gone into urgency. I have to say though I wonder why we went into urgency in that we will finish this afternoon earlier than normal. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I say to the member that we believed National Party members when they said they would fight this bill with every breath in their bodies. We actually believed them. But I say to the member who wants to keep interjecting that the more he goes along that line the more embarrassed he will become. I point out to this Committee that usually the Government does not take terribly many calls when the House goes into urgency. It is usually only Opposition members who speak. Had that been the case with this bill—no calls from the Government and no calls from New Zealand First to support it—we would probably have finished last night. I can say that the National Party has been hot air and hot wind—but not much of it. 
There have been some snipes and I can hear a few now. I personally regret that the leader of the National Party has not seen fit to take a call in this debate. There is a particular reason why the Leader of the Opposition should have taken a call. He has a very calming influence over this House. The last major speech he made in this House on a social issue was exceedingly calming I can tell members. I say to members that from time to time the National Party could have done with a bit of calming influence. 
Tariana Turia has interjected quite a few times in this debate. She went to the Business Committee and sought an additional call and I think every party supported that. But I had not heard one syllable from her officially through the microphone until she took a point of order a little while ago. Why does the member not take a call? She supposedly represents a lot of Maori people and she has not taken one call in the Committee stage of this bill where possibly she could have had some influence. 
I would like to refer to United Future. That party I believe is fairly close to supporting this bill and I am disappointed that it could not move that little bit closer. I think United Future’s opposition is hanging on the thread that we did not recognise the concept of public domain. I tell United Future members to go and ask the public what the words “public domain” mean to them. If they ask 20 people they will get 20 different answers. If they ask any New Zealander what Crown ownership means they will get one answer that everybody understands and everybody believes in. I am absolutely proud and delighted that my colleagues in New Zealand First supported the Labour Party Government in having Crown ownership thoroughly recognised. 
I say to National Party members that I have listened to all their public utterances and their statements and I have come to the conclusion that they like this bill very much but their pride will not let them vote for it. Pride has got in the way of their doing the right thing by all New Zealanders. 
If I do have one disappointment about the bill and about the tone of this debate it is that it has from time to time tried to divide this nation—Maori and non-Maori. I say to people and I say this with some sincerity that if they think we will bridge the differences between Maori and non-Maori by being patronising to Maori then they are wrong. If they think we will bridge the differences between Maori and non-Maori by taking a rebellious attitude as perhaps the Maori Party wants to take then they are wrong. If they think they will bridge the differences between Maori and non-Maori in this country by being superior then they are wrong.  
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 The longer this debate goes on the more ridiculous it is becoming. I agree with the member who spoke before me who said that New Zealanders understand Crown ownership. The point he has missed is that the majority of submitters did not like the concept of Crown ownership. They wanted public domain. 
Throughout this debate I have heard the Rt Hon Winston Peters announce on a number of occasions that this legislation is not about people going to the beach. We have heard again and again that this legislation will not affect anybody’s right to go to the beach. Now at the end of the debate we have heard the last two speakers from New Zealand First say that when people go to the beach this summer they can thank New Zealand First for it. I ask who is spreading half-truths around the country. Who is creating problems in the way that this debate has been handled? 
I understand that the Labour members are enjoying their time this afternoon sitting here and watching the National Party members stumble through this debate and that they are tempted to allow it to continue. But I would like to remind them that that would be at the expense of the New Zealand taxpayers and I urge someone on that side of the Chamber to please move a closure motion because this debate has gone on long enough.  
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I take this point of order to advise the Committee more than anything that the Supreme Court has just brought down its decision in favour of the ACT party. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 42 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 6; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 8; United Future 8; ACT New Zealand 6; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That proposed new clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Proposed new clause 2 agreed to. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee divide the bill into the Foreshore and Seabed Bill and the Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill 
 divided into Foreshore and Seabed Bill Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill 
 pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 305 
. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 In the circumstances a number of the ACT party caucus are across the road at the High Court and I therefore seek the leave of the Committee that notwithstanding Standing Order 156 we vote to our full strength of eight shortly to be nine. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not. Leave is granted. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. My apologies; I need to seek leave to correct the Green Party votes that have occurred since 2 p.m. this afternoon from nine votes to eight. My apologies for that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That will be corrected. I will read out the new results as soon as they are collated. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Procedure 
The bill was reported with amendment. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Report adopted. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call on Dr Cullen to move the third reading motion I advise members that I will put the questions on both bills separately at the end.