te Heuheu Georgina: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17100] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am very grateful for the opportunity to take a call because I want to say I am very pleased to see people sitting in the gallery and they ought to know and be aware that this part purportedly gives all other New Zealanders—who perhaps have not had the opportunity under previous parts—the opportunity to apply to the High Court for various orders. But as previous speakers have said it is a sham. 
I would like to ask the Minister in the chair first of all what a natural person is. Is that meant to distinguish people who are unnatural? Is it some cunning attempt to bar or block out say my colleague Maurice Williamson? Because I really take umbrage at that. I have not been present in the Chamber the whole of the evening but if the Minister has not explained the meaning of a natural person as opposed to an unnatural one then I think he should. If one is a person surely one is a natural person and presumably one has the right to apply for these customary orders. But to whom and in what circumstances does this provision apply? I do not think anybody—certainly not anybody on this side of the Chamber and I do not think anybody on the other side of the Chamber either—actually understands whom it applies to and in what circumstances. I think John Tamihere implied that I can apply under this part. Well thank you very much but why would I go to the court expend precious money then spend more money giving public notice of my application to do something that I probably could do anyway and that probably most New Zealanders could do? It is just a sop. It is a sham. 
In contrast to others who say that this part is a Winston Peters’ part I say that in reality the whole bill is a Winston Peters’ bill because without him that side could not put it into effect. It is no credit to him or his band of 13 happy people I might say. But the whole thing is so that Winston Peters can go up and down the country saying to Maori: “Your mana is protected.” and saying to all other people: “Your mana is protected too.” It is meant to be protected in this part. How can that be? This part is absolutely complex. Nobody knows whom it is meant to apply to and in what circumstances. The Minister will not tell us. He should at least take notice of the fact that there are people sitting in the gallery who have a right to know whether they can go to the court and have their customary practices recognised. The Minister is nodding to the group sitting up in the centre of the gallery but despite his having given them a sign I do not know whether those people are any the wiser. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The debate is inside the Chamber. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: I am speaking on this part of the bill Mr Chairperson. What activity might those fine gentlemen sitting up there—those great New Zealanders—apply to the court for recognition of and why would they bother? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member must address the Chamber. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: And at what cost are they meant to do that? This is a cynical provision from this Government to allow Winston Peters to go up and down the country saying: “There is one law for all. We are all equal. Here you are Maori; you can apply under these parts. Here you are all the rest of you you go under these parts.” I think that in any event no matter what John Tamihere says the limitations clause in this part probably blocks Maori out anyway. I cannot imagine the Government would give them two bites out of the cherry no matter what my colleagues might say.