Sharples Pita: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — Second Reading 
Sharples Pita: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:670;Page:16989] 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I have listened to various interpretations of what is happening around the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. I want to speak about the bill and about the Maori Party’s activity in getting support for it. 
I stand today driven by the support of the wider Maori Party to speak on the second reading of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. Two months after submissions closed on the bill  
Te Karere 
 carried out a poll of 1002 Maori voters from the Maori and general rolls who were interviewed during the month of January. There was only one percentage point difference between those who thought the Maori Party should support the bill and those who thought the Maori Party should not support it. But by far the greatest result was a massive 37.2 percent of voters who did not know whether to support it. This points out to me the insignificant role in terms of the life of New Zealand and day-to-day needs and issues that this bill plays in their lives. 
Minister Turia and I attended a number of iwi leaders’ hui. At one hui we attended in Wellington 70 tribal and hapu representatives were present. In the discussion on this bill some opposed it and some supported it and they gave their reasons for doing so. But at the end of our discussions the entire group expressed their support for the Maori Party’s stand in repealing the 2004 Act as we had promised. Once again on Waitangi weekend—just last month—a similar hui was held and a similar number of leaders were there. Once again they voted their thanks and their support for the Maori Party’s activity around this bill. So any talk of 95 percent of Maori opposing this bill is not only fabrication it is mischievous. 
The Maori Party cannot afford to walk away. We could not face our future giving away the best opportunity we have to make a difference. We knew that neither of the larger parties on its own red or blue would touch this legislation with a bargepole if it was not to achieve progress this term. Yet not one Maori has come to me and said: “Please do what you can to entrench the 2004 foreshore and seabed bill for the rest of time.” In fact my electorate Tamaki Makaurau told me forcefully in the media yesterday to “hurry up and repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act” and that was after a number of hui that I had held this month but also earlier hui. 
Of the close to 4000 submissions received on the 2004 Act 94 percent opposed it. Five years later in the 2009 ministerial review of that Act the bitter opposition to the 2004 Act was still profoundly evident. The first recommendation of the ministerial review to the Government was as follows: “First of all the 2004 Act should be repealed. That Act is built on such shaky foundations that it should be repealed rather than amended. It is necessary to start again. It also gave Maori such umbrage that many of them will not buy into an alternative statutory regime unless the old Act is seen to be repealed.” 
And so what have we the Maori Party done? Very simply started again. We have started again by restoring the ability for customary title to be recognised. This bill explicitly recognises the enduring mana-based relationship of whanau hapu and iwi to the marine and coastal area of their rohe. The automatic award of mana tuku iho demonstrates that. Maori do not have to prove anything in order to achieve that recognition; it is theirs by right as tangata whenua. But what is important is that this bill starts again by establishing the fundamental and indeed pivotal importance of tikanga in determining title. The 2004 Act did not incorporate tikanga in its tests. This bill the takutai moana bill encompasses tikanga as a key element in the test for customary title and allows for differences in tikanga from group to group. 
The tests of course have been a major concern for whanau hapu and iwi and a key point of negotiation for us in the duration of this bill. We have argued for recognition of different ways that Maori have continued to exercise kaitiakitanga over foreshore and seabed areas. We acknowledge too the very real need to ensure that raupatu claimants are not excluded through the requirement to satisfy the court or Crown officials that raupatu did not cause a substantial interruption to their exclusive use and occupation of the takutai moana. 
We welcome the initiative taken by hapu of Ngati Ranginui iwi who provided the wording that would exempt iwi and hapu from having to do that and would give raupatu iwi the certainty they seek that raupatu will not be deemed a substantial interruption when they make claims for title. And we acknowledge the very significant contribution made by Ngai Tahu to this aspect of the debate. Mark Solomon spoke passionately to the Maori Affairs Committee about Ngai Tahu being disqualified from the bill by reason of their generosity. He was speaking about the practice of manaakitanga—of hospitality of sharing—which was demonstrated in their sharing the bounty of the sea and the bounty of the foreshore. We believe that consideration of manaakitanga is vital to a successful understanding of the framework around this bill and we are pleased that through our intervention it now forms part of the preamble to the bill. 
I think it is important to note that a historical breach of the Treaty does not automatically break the chain of continuity necessary to prove exclusive use and occupation. It is possible that customary title could exist in an area where breaches of the Treaty have occurred. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. 
Everyone in this House knows that this bill is not the perfect bill; it will not please everyone. But it provides recognition and protection of customary rights and that is why Ngati Apa took a case to the Maori Land Court all those years ago—to have those rights recognised. It has not happened overnight. Many thousands of submissions of hui of legal papers of frameworks of polls and surveys have been undertaken since 2003 when the Court of Appeal agreed that Ngati Apa could have customary title investigated by the courts. This bill restores the ability of Maori to seek customary property rights in the High Court. Customary interests extinguished by the 2004 Act are restored. And as Minister Turia said earlier this bill places the burden of proof on the Crown to prove that extinguishment of customary title had occurred. 
I concur with the thinking of our leaders who have encouraged hapu and iwi to start preparing for the negotiations process and to establish a precedent. We have worked hard to ensure that there is funding in place to be made available to iwi in a manner similar to how claimant funding is provided for the Treaty settlement negotiations process. 
We do of course recognise that the bill does not settle all the issues but it does keep them alive. There was a very strong message from the submissions made by whanau hapu and iwi that we must apply every effort to ensure the momentum is maintained in creating a new Treaty-based longer conversation to recognise and give effect to the mana of hapu and iwi. The Maori Party pledges our support and our ongoing commitment to that call a call we will take up with passion in the constitutional review and indeed a call that will continue to motivate us in every policy outcome we seek. And if there is one key challenge that we must adhere to in every successive stage of this bill and every bill before the House it will be the message of the 2004 hikoi.