Finlayson ChristopherHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): National supports this legislation which is perhaps not surprising given that I was the one who signed the deed of amendment on 9 August of last year.Can I begin by endorsing everything that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations said in his excellent speech starting with his very warm tribute to that late great New Zealander Api Mahuika. I must confess I still miss even today some years after his death that cheery Kia ora Chris" phone call that I used to receive from him. He didn't bother to say who he was because he knew I knew immediately. I learnt so much from him. I regarded him as one of my mentors along with the gravelly voiced Tīpene O'Regan from the South. Both of them are great New Zealanders and the memory of Api Mahuika will live on for many many years. I pay tribute to Ngāti Porou and the current leadership in the gallery. Can I particularly pay tribute to Api's son Matanuku Mahuika who really did all the grunt work on this legislation over a number of years.This has been accurately summarised by the Minister in his speech. It is very much a one-off piece of legislation a sui generis piece of legislation reflecting the intent on the part of the Crown to honour the original deed of settlement which was signed as the Minister said on October 2008 and reflecting all the changes that have occurred since then. I don't want to sort of rake over old coals or rip scabs off things or get into contentious material but it's worth summarising just how we got to where we are today. It started with June 2003 when the Court of Appeal released its decision in the Ngāti Apa case and held that whānau or iwi or individuals could apply to the court for an order that customary title existed in the foreshore and seabed. That gave rise for various reasons to legislation—the Foreshore and Seabed Act of 2004 one of the more contentious pieces of legislation that this House has dealt with. When we became the Government in 2008 we said we would review that legislation and that gave rise to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act of 2011.I admire the current Minister for a number of reasons but I particularly admire him for his courage when he was the president of the Labour Party in that period between 2008 and 2011 for standing up and saying "Actually we may have got that one wrong." I thought that his concession at that time was very bold very noble and very dignified. So the marine and coastal Act was passed and it restored to Māori the right either to go to the court for an order for customary title or apply to the Minister of the day to negotiate an order which would be given effect to through legislation.As the Minister said one of the points of difference is that there's a two-year limitation period under this limitation for the various hapū of Ngāti Porou to apply for what is very similar to customary title under the marine and coastal Act whereas the limitation period under the marine and coastal Act was six years and that expired last year. Not surprisingly given that there was a limitation period there were quite a number of eleventh-hour applications which excited the Hobson's Pledge people and people like that.The reality of the matter is there was a limitation period which was put in the marine and coastal Act for very good policy reasons and it was almost inevitable that there would be eleventh-hour applications. Some are very good applications; others are extremely weak and the courts can sort those out or the Minister can sort those out in the years to come.The important points to note are first that—and the Minister's absolutely correct—uniquely Ngāti Porou had actually signed with Sir Michael Cullen a deed of settlement in relation to their foreshore and seabed matters on 30 October 2008. Legislation had been introduced before the dissolution of that Parliament and for many years it lay on the bottom of the Order Paper.When the review was under way or was beginning I phoned Api Mahuika and I said "Look I know your legislation's there but it would make sense if the matter could be delayed for a number of months to enable the review to be conducted." Sir Eddie Durie was leading that review with Professor Richard Boast and one other. It was just illustrative of that man's generosity of spirit on behalf of his iwi. He spoke to his iwi and said "Yes. We will hold fire until the review takes place but we want to make sure that we're not disadvantaged in any way." And I gave him that assurance.Then after the new legislation was passed the task for the Ministry of Justice officials and the negotiator was to marry into the new framework what had been contained in the original deed of settlement. So there won't be any legislation like this ever again I shouldn't have thought because all other matters are going to be dealt with under the marine and coastal Act 2011.The only other iwi that came close to Ngāti Porou in relation to an agreement under the old foreshore and seabed legislation was Te Whānau-a-Apanui but they hadn't actually signed and so they missed out. I hope in the very near future their rights can be determined under the marine and coastal Act because I consider that that is one of those areas of New Zealand where there is plenty of customary title but I don't want to pre-judge the situation.So how do we deal with this? The key to it is in Part 1 the preliminary provisions clauses 6 and 7. What that does is say that the Ngāti Porou legislation when passed is going to apply to the hapū of Ngāti Porou instead of Parts 3 and 4 of the marine and coastal Act 2011—Parts 3 and 4 deal with the customary interests that the Minister has referred to and various administrative and miscellaneous matters. So they will have no application to the hapū of Ngāti Porou but it will be this legislation that deals with those matters. Any non-ratifying hapū of Ngāti Porou will be entitled to rely on the processes under the marine and coastal Act 2011 until they decide—as I hope they will—to join up to the regime provided by this legislation. The second preliminary provision which is critical is that Part 2 of the marine and coastal Act will continue to apply with a couple of minor amendments.So I endorse what the Minister has said. I'm really pleased that we've reached the stage where the legislation has been introduced because it weighed heavily on me that for so many years every Order Paper that we had in this House had the Ngāti Porou legislation at the end. I think it was lower than even the Natural Health and Supplementary Products Bill which sat there for the same number of years. So it's really good that this matter is now before the House. The National Party supports it and endorses what the Minister said—that it should go to the Māori Affairs Committee as quickly as possible.I've heard what the Minister has said about reviewing the marine and coastal Act. Look it's settled law now. Applications have been filed. The last thing Parliament needs is to be revisiting the marine and coastal area Act because at the end of the day everyone agreed that the foreshore and seabed legislation wasn't working. People needed to have their day in court and uninvestigated customary title could be reviewed by applicants. So I actually think notwithstanding what some neanderthals outside may think that we're in a good space with this legislation but Ngāti Porou deserve this special treatment because of their generosity of spirit in 2008."