Mahuta Nanaia: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Mahuta Nanaia: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17133] 
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 I want to take a call on Part 6 and comment on a couple of points—firstly in respect of some issues raised by the member who has just spoken. There has been some concern throughout the whole debate that a foreshore and seabed reserve in itself could prevent a marine reserve or a mataitai but in fact if a management committee within its management plan decided it wanted a marine reserve or a mataitai then under this part of the legislation it could indeed provide for and apply for these.  
I say to the speaker before me that after the whole process of establishing our foreshore and seabed reserves has been gone through a management committee that wanted a marine reserve could itself make an application under the Marine Reserves Act to redesignate its reserve as a marine reserve. I think it could achieve aims that are not too different from those of all New Zealanders in terms of protecting the marine biodiversity of our foreshores and seas. So it is all possible. The point here is that it is a decision that can be made entirely within the foreshore and seabed reservations provided for in this bill. I think it is a bit of game-playing to say it cannot happen because it can. It is all within the possibility of the decision making of the management board and the management plan. We should embrace the kind of ability that restores decision making back to local peoples and their communities—local decisions made by local peoples and their communities. That is important.  
The clause in Part 6 that I want to talk to in particular is clause 115 which will be no surprise to members. It is worth reading. The proposed new heading is “Provision saving Maori reservations”. The clause has some direct relevance to areas along the Manukau Harbour and in particular to Whatapaka Marae. Subclause (1) states: “This section applies if before the commencement of this section any land that is in the public foreshore and seabed has been set apart as Maori reservation—(a) by the Chief Executive of Te Puni Kokiri under section 338 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993: (b) on application of the Minister of Maori Affairs under section 339 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993: (c) upon the express recommendation of the Maori Land Court under section 340. (1A) A Maori reservation referred to in subsection (1) must be treated as if it were a specified freehold interest for so long as it is set apart under section 338 or section 339 or section 340 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993.”  
Within the clarification of that there is a place along the Manukau Harbour—a place called Whatapaka Marae. Prior to the introduction of this bill that marae was able to extend its reservation out into the Manukau Harbour. That happened after quite an extensive tribunal hearing for the Manukau Harbour following the Foreshore and Seabed Endowment Revesting Act. It enabled the marae to extend its reservation in order to look after its flounder and oyster beds. Kaitiaki from the marae ensure—they do not patrol—that the resources there are continually replenishing and that there are enough to feed the marae. All types of fishermen go into the reserve—Maori Pakeha whoever. The point is that when it comes to regulating to ensure that the resources are continually replenishing and that people are respecting the values of the marae a couple of the marae kaitiaki go out and say: “Not today mate.”  and everybody knows why—it is not a good time; there are not enough flounders around just then. It is pretty well respected. If people would like to go out to that marae and have a look at how it actually happens they will see that a lot of cooperation exists amongst all peoples in the area Maori and Pakeha alike and that they are able to manage what is happening in the reserve. The reserve goes into the Manukau Harbour quite well in fact.  
So again I think that clause 115 is a clause that will be embraced certainly in terms of the particular example I have cited. I would like to comment on the origin of that because there has been some lack of historical recollection in the Committee about these types of issues.