Fairbrother Russell: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Fairbrother Russell: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16958] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 All Pakeha must approach this bill with hesitant steps. It was the forebears of we Pakeha who with good intentions may have contributed to the tragic marginalisation that has been the past and real experience of Maori at the expense of accepted Pakeha culture. As a Pakeha I ask myself what my mokopuna—my grandchildren—will say of my endorsement of this bill. I approach the concepts in this bill which are grounded in tikanga and I know I can intellectualise tikanga but I can never live it.  
I also approach the contents of this bill with 30 years of intense and daily experience in litigation—advocacy in the first instance and at appellate level including the Privy Council. I thus believe this is legislation that will become recognised as a law that all New Zealand will be proud of and that this Labour Party will develop as a flag-bearer. The pride will stem from the sound legal and moral basis of the bill. This bill is a reflection of inspired thoughtful intelligent and principled leadership of both Pakeha and Maori leaders of this country. That is also the leadership that truly reflects the face of 21st century New Zealand.  
The work of Dr Cullen Margaret Wilson Dover Samuels Parekura Horomia Mita Ririnui John Tamihere Mahara Okeroa Dave Hereora and Moana Mackey on this bill has been considerable and ongoing. It has not been done in the isolation of some extreme theory or some political petty agenda. We see that in the approach taken in this House by the parties that lament receiving a Supplementary Order Paper today. They had an opportunity of contributing to the development of this bill but they abrogated that responsibility by playing politics at the select committee and by refusing to debate the amendments that would be available. But if one reads the report which surprisingly the members of the select committee agreed would go forward and the report of the independent legal adviser that they unanimously endorsed—the adviser who endorsed the concept of this bill—we can take from that endorsement that the concepts of inalienability of guardianship and of public access are all inherent concepts of our foreshore and seabed and they are reflected in this bill.  
Not once did those lions in this House tackle the concepts articulated by Dr Paul McHugh in his 2½-hour contribution to the select committee. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: You are a waste of space. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Not once did that man even open his mouth for fear that he would be put in his place.  
Not once did Dr Wayne Mapp who shared the same university background challenge the concepts of Dr McHugh. But when it comes time to politicise and to advocate in the public arena to grab the airways and to inflame boy they are very brave then! But they avoided pitting their wits against the best mind behind the development of this bill. That is why I stand proud. This is a moral bill because it balances— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to keep your ears open for some of the comments that are coming from the other side of the House. We appreciate that this is a vigorous debate and we realise that someone like Russell Fairbrother is going to be somewhat reckless with the truth when he gives a speech like this but it is inappropriate that Mr Tamihere—of all people—makes the comments he has been making. In the same vein as the Prime Minister might I say that I am offended by his comments and ask that he withdraw and apologise.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am afraid that I missed the comments. I apologise for that. I do not know what they were but I accept that the member heard something that offended him. 
John Tamihere 
: In the event that people were offended I withdraw and apologise.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: What we have seen in the reports of the various members of the select committee demonstrates that this is a moral bill because it is balanced. It is balanced because it reflects the different perception use and understanding of property in the Pakeha world—the very refined sense of that—and the different view in the Maori world. This bill successfully brings these two together and no party in any of its reports has undermined the basis of that. This is a legally sound bill. It is legally sound because it codifies a difficult area of common law. It codifies the common law in a New Zealand sense. It reflects the plea of all submitters that what is special to New Zealand goes forward in our legislation. This bill lays a road map for future litigation so that the road map is not developed on the haphazard status of how the case is pleaded—by the inadequacies of a particular lawyer or the over-exuberance of another lawyer. 
Debate interrupted.