Mapp Wayne: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Mapp Wayne: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18817] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 Part 2 is the interpretation section and it includes a whole series of clauses that deal with interpretation. To be fair most of those are quite unexceptional and I do not have any particular concerns with them. But I have a particular issue regarding the definition of “waterway”. I have been through this legislation over the last couple of weeks as it has been dealt with in the House and wondered why the definition of “waterway” refers to coastal waters including harbours. It goes on to exclude canals for power generation and so forth but I will focus particularly on the reference to coastal waters. 
I would like the Minister to explain the relationship between this legislation and the Foreshore and Seabed Act as it is now. As I read the balance of the legislation it is not entirely clear to me exactly what rights Ngati Awa gain over coastal waters. One would think that it is quite an important issue because the Crown is the owner of the foreshore and seabed. The Government has stated this in legislation. But both in the select committee on the foreshore and seabed legislation and in this Chamber the Government has said that nothing in the foreshore and seabed legislation derogated from the power of the Crown to transfer fee simple to claimants as part of a treaty settlement. So there is a general proposition with which New Zealanders of all races agree to a greater or lesser extent. The Crown on behalf of all of us and irrespective of ethnicity owns the foreshore and seabed. 
There is a special exception set aside essentially for future transfers as part of treaty settlements. As I read this particular settlement bill it does not seem to involve any transfers of fee simple of the foreshore and seabed. I have looked for that carefully. It is possible that I missed it because it is a complex bill but on the face of it and based on my examination thus far that does not seem to be the case. Yet there is a reference to waterways in the bill. Therefore I presume what is really being intended—because I might add that there is substantial reference to this in various schedules—is some form of granting governance or consultation rights over the foreshore and seabed. 
This brings one back to the whole issue that I was raising before of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. I am sure members are well familiar with the treaty itself. To put it simply article 1 of the treaty transfers sovereignty article 2 protects property rights of various kinds and article 3 provides for all Maori to have the rights of British subjects or to put it in modern parlance everyone has the right of citizenship. 
None of that would therefore presuppose any form of partnership. I know that that term is used extensively and that it has many different meanings to many different people but at least in some respects the Government seems to interpret “partnership” as authorising the Labour Government of 1999 to 2005 to have the right to set out in legislation special consultation provisions for Maori. 
That is not just on things of immediate and direct interest to Maori such as cultural and language issues but on much wider terms. For instance it even exists in copyright and patent legislation as extraordinary as that might seem. There is a sense of shared governance as opposed just to consultation. There is a major difference when the Government starts providing a form of shared governance of much of New Zealand’s public domain. 
So therefore I would like to know what is intended in this bill. Is the inclusion of that definition of “waterways” when read with the relevant schedules intended to give Ngati Awa governance over coastal waters?