Ririnui Mita: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Ririnui Mita: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17283] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) 
: 
 Before I talk about particular aspects of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill and in particular clause 11 I want to acknowledge the comments made by the previous speaker Hone Harawira. A lot of what he said was true. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: A new coalition partner? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: I do not have to be a coalition partner with anyone to recognise the truth I say to Mr Henare. It is interesting—I have a very long memory and Mr Harawira identified some of the issues that the Maori Party campaigned on in 2005. 
As I said I have a very long memory and part of my memory is a particular hui in Tauranga at which the Hon Georgina te Heuheu was present the Hon Nanaia Mahuta was present I was present and the candidate—now the member—for Waiariki was present. We talked a lot about the technical issues of the 2004 legislation. 
It is interesting that the very issues on which we were challenged as incumbent MPs are the very issues that are covered in clause 11. One of those issues was that of partnership. As incumbent Labour members at that time we had to admit that we were struggling for answers. There was an issue associated with partnership. People in our communities could not quite understand why we had accepted legislation that was not very clear about the partnership between Maori and the Crown. I have to say that this bill is even less clear because it transfers the relationship between Maori and the Crown established in the 2004 legislation to a relationship between Maori and an unidentified undefined group of people called the New Zealand public. 
My argument at this time supports that of Hone Harawira. When Maori signed the Treaty in 1840 it was directly with the Crown. Although it has taken some time for us to accept and understand the nature and extent of the relationship we have by and large developed a level of confidence and trust in it. For Maori the question is who we are dealing with now. Who are we dealing with when we sit down with Crown officials and representatives and Government Ministers to talk about our customary rights? We are not really sure. We might say that we are right back to where we were in February 1840—there is a lack of trust a lack of confidence and a lack of understanding. That is exactly what clause 11 achieves. 
At the Maori Affairs Committee it was clear that the vast majority of the submitters—most of them if not all of them—were totally opposed to the removal of the takutai moana from Crown ownership because it created an environment of uncertainty for Maori. I am wondering how the member for Waiariki can go out on the hustings to promote this particular bill—which contains the issue that was of concern to him and his colleagues including Hone Harawira in 2005—and take ownership of it. That is a very very unusual move and Maori particularly in the central North Island will not accept it. 
I am sure the Hon Georgina te Heuheu is aware of the meeting I mentioned because she was quite vocal at that meeting and she condemned particular parts of the 2004 legislation. That being what it is I have a long memory as a politician but others have very short memories. In fact they hate to be reminded of statements they made at any time during their political careers. 
Paul Quinn 
: The worm turns. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: It is interesting that the two people who have interjected the most in this debate are the very two people who were not present at any of those meetings including the great hikoi that came down the country although they have a lot to say about it. I will forgive them for that. One of them just happens to be related to me. 
We can understand why the member from Te Tai Tokerau Hone Harawira has issues with his former colleagues from the Maori Party. I wonder whether the Minister in the chair the Attorney-General will take a call very soon and explain not only for the members of this Committee but also for the Maori community in general how this new relationship will work. We have parts of the takutai moana meaning the dry land which in Maori terms is part of the takutai moana. Where that is common it is in Crown ownership whereas the land that is below the high-water mark—in other words the wet areas of the takutai moana—is in public ownership. That is how the bill describes the situation to us. This part of the bill is for many Maori communities the area that really requires some clarification and I hope the Minister takes the opportunity to clarify those points. 
The other point that came up at the Maori Affairs Committee was the issue of the extinguishment of customary rights under the 2004 legislation. Given that many Maori were led to believe that customary rights in terms of their customary rights are abstract and did not exist in law prior to 2004—apart from the fisheries settlement which was pretty clear and defined—exactly which rights were extinguished? That was not very clear and it is not very clear in Part 2 what rights are being restored as a result of the repeal of the 2004 legislation. I invite the Minister to take the opportunity to clarify that because I am very interested. 
Part 1 discussed codification of customary rights but it also raised a whole lot of issues to do with the role of iwi in terms of applications to the High Court. Unfortunately when we go to that level of the judicial system everything else becomes codified in law. Tikanga becomes codified. Manaakitanga becomes codified—[ 
Interruption 
]. Yes it does I say to the Minister in the chair. When the High Court makes a decision on what tikanga and other customary practices are it codifies them in law and that is why Maori were determined that direct negotiations with the Crown were necessary because in rangatira ki te rangitira there is an understanding about what each other’s values mean. 
Unfortunately Maori see that codification through the High Court process will be a one-size-fits-all approach. If we codify something in law that is what it is. I give members an example. Te Arawa will have a different definition of tikanga from Mataatua and that is good; it is the diversity of the people we deal with and live with every day. Te Atiawa will have a different definition of what tikanga means to them from that of Ngati Toa even though they live in the same geographic area so that becomes a huge problem particularly when the High Court or any court makes a decision on what those terms mean. For Maori that locks us into an understanding of our own world that we are not comfortable with and I am sure the Minister will have thought about that. 
My whanaunga Paul Quinn will be aware that Ngati Awa are very very rigid in terms of their definitions and no law in the land will tell them any different. [ 
Interruption 
] If he supports this bill he will have to explain to them why he supported the codification of their practices for the sake of political expediency. That will be very difficult for him to explain to them. Tau Henare will have to do the same to his Ngati Hine Ngati Wai people. That is the difficulty we have here and that is the value as Apirana Mahuika would have said in direct negotiations with Crown Ministers over the customary interests of Ngati Porou on the East Coast. He sat down with Crown officials and Ministers and told them what it meant for Ngati Porou and that was accepted. There was no argument about it. The Crown however said: “This is our tikanga.” and Ngati Porou accepted that. By mutual agreement a deal was done and an outcome was achieved. It was signed off and the Minister in the chair the Hon Chris Finlayson was fortunate to have been able to sign it off. 
But the value of that relationship has now gone because we are talking about codification. Everything that Maori once believed in will be codified in law particularly where takutai moana is concerned. That in itself is an extinguishment of our practices. Kia ora.