Hunt Jonathan: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — First Reading 
Hunt Jonathan: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12726] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I do not want to have any other comments made from the gallery. One hundred and twenty people were elected at the last election—they sit here. Members of the public are entitled in a democracy to listen. They are not entitled to participate and all people in this House have to be given the right to speak. I ask that Jeanette Fitzsimons be heard by anyone other than those in the House in silence. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: It should be obvious by now that many thousands of other New Zealanders do not support it either and they are not just Maori. They have come from every corner of New Zealand: grandmothers and tiny babies kaumatua and rangatahi; at least 15000 and some say even 30000 to tell us in this Parliament to taihoa. They cannot understand why this Government which they have supported for decades is doing this to them. The Prime Minister will not meet them. Yet they are her constituents—the loyal supporters and voters of the Labour Party—and they do not appreciate being told that they are opposed to the legislation only because they do not understand it. As I walked with them yesterday I felt the power of their sense of betrayal and also the power of their hope that this thing might still be turned round for the sake of all New Zealanders. It was a positive good-natured hikoi. People sang hongi-ed and hugged each other. I saw no violence and no hatred. 
As I stood on the steps with my Green colleagues I remember the last hikoi to Parliament which another Prime Minister refused to meet and when another political leader was feted as the hope for the future. I remembered seeing the banner “No more asset sales” and I remember the vote in Parliament just a few minutes before that to sell Contact Energy including a quarter of our electricity generation and the water rights on the Clutha River. When New Zealand First members support this legislation they might like to recall that their election promise not to sell State assets lasted only until they walked out of their coalition with National. Crown-owned foreshore and rights of public access can be sold in the same way by a simple majority of Parliament; Maori customary-owned foreshore cannot. That is one reason that this legislation is bad for Pakeha as well as for Maori. 
Other reasons are that it sets a precedent for confiscation of legal rights and it undermines the treaty which is our treaty too and it makes us feel ashamed locally and internationally. This bill will perpetuate bad environmental management. Around New Zealand local authorities are still pouring raw sewage into the sea. They are still failing to protect fragile dunes shellfish beds and nesting grounds from four-wheel drives. They are still allowing totally inappropriate coastal subdivisions and commercial developments on historic iconic headlands like Cape Kidnappers contrary to their own district plans. We need hapu and iwi to exercise their kaitiakitanga to be part of the decision making about coastal management because they do not support the desecration of the coast. Our future as a nation depends on a good working relationship between Government and hapu in local communities. We desperately need cooperative negotiation over the oceans policy the aquaculture policy and fisheries regulations and the marine reserves bill. All of these are on hold until the foreshore and seabed issue is resolved but resolving it by force and without the agreement of one party will create conflict for generations. 
This bill in conjunction with Don Brash’s speech has driven a wedge between people stirring up false fears among Pakeha that the access to the beach is under threat and destroying the trust of Maori in Pakeha processes because they feel betrayed. And it was all unnecessary. When the Court of Appeal decision came out the Government could have said: “This isn’t quite what we expected but we have a treaty partnership here so let’s sit down and find our areas of agreement and difference and negotiate a solution we can all live with.” 
The areas of agreement are large. No Maori leader I have spoken to is holding out for exclusive freehold saleable title. They agree that there should be public access except in a few very special places. But they would like it to be freely offered and freely accepted not snatched as though they were trying to withhold it. They want their kaitiakitanga and their mana recognised. They want a say in management decisions. They want some rights to commercial developments within the law. None of this is unreasonable and none of it excludes the rest of us. A simple amendment to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act could provide that when customary title is found to exist the Maori Land Court could issue a collective customary non-saleable title with negotiated public access registered on it. It is still possible.