Ririnui Mita: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Ririnui Mita: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16982] 
MITA RIRINUI (Labour—Waiariki) 
: 
 I start by saying that probably the best proposal put to the Committee this morning was the proposition by the Rt Hon Winston Peters that he convene a meeting at lunchtime today of the Opposition parties for their benefit so that they can get their lines right—for that simple reason. 
Most of them oppose this bill but for different reasons. National Party members have described this bill as racist. At the same time its members on the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee supported Crown ownership. They also acknowledged that Maori had customary rights over the foreshore and seabed. If National members did not have that view they would never have passed Tainui’s settlement Act and the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act. Both those Acts refer to the customary rights of those iwi. National Party members also support the concept of public access being protected. Given all of that and given that they still oppose this bill one wonders how they determine their position. 
I shall also comment on the contribution made by the Hon Richard Prebble earlier today. He referred to the object of the bill as being racist. He read out that clause and he seemed to have an issue with that two-part statement. The first part of it acknowledges the common heritage of all New Zealanders and the second part acknowledges the association of whanau hapu and iwi with the foreshore and seabed. Which part of that does he consider racist? Is he suggesting that we take out the first part—the common heritage of all New Zealanders? He did not make that very clear. He did not understand the second part which I find very interesting given that he belongs to a party that acknowledges property rights. Really this matter is about Maori property rights and that is reflected throughout this bill. 
I also want to touch on a matter raised by the United Future speaker Gordon Copeland. Obviously like the Rt Hon Winston Peters the Hon Dover Samuels myself and many other people in this House he has a strong association with the foreshore. Many of us experienced an upbringing in which we enjoyed the leisure time we spent at the beach. Mr Copeland believes that this bill will stop him from doing all those kinds of things that he has done in his life. That is absolute rubbish. He needs to go back to the bill and read it very very carefully. He will find that nothing will change following its enactment. 
I have tried to get a fix on the Greens’ position. I am afraid I am still trying. It seems they share the view of ACT that the bill is racist but ACT believes that any acknowledgment of Maori customary rights is racist because they are rights peculiar to Maori. What is racist about that? Those members also believe that the bill threatens the rights of access of the general public. That is also not true. It is stated quite clearly in the purpose clause of the bill that public access is guaranteed. Throughout the select committee hearings process all the Maori submitters made it very clear that it was not their intention at any time to inhibit public access to the foreshore and seabed. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Actually that is not true. Margaret Mutu said she should deny access. 
MITA RIRINUI 
: I think Mr Mapp is doing Margaret Mutu a disservice. Although she has some very strong views about the bill one thing she was adamant about was that there was not a threat to public access. Mr Mapp needs to get his statements correct. I recall his misquoting a number of the submitters who came to the select committee and suggesting that they were threatening the rights of all New Zealanders when in fact all that they were doing was spelling out their rights very clearly to the select committee. Those rights have been taken into consideration. If we had been given the opportunity to report back in the way that we would have liked with amendments to the bill those points would have been made very clear in the report. But we were denied that opportunity and here we are with a very very lengthy Supplementary Order Paper. 
A lot of attention was given throughout the hearings process to Maori development rights. Like many iwi around the country my people Mataatua and Te Arawa have very very strong links with the foreshore and seabed. We have always been very active in the fishing industry—although this bill is not about fishing or mahinga mataitai; it is in fact about other areas of customary rights. In particular my people Ngati Whakaue have an ancestral connection for want of better words to a particular area on our coast. We have used that area in the past for commercial gain for the benefit of our people.