Fitzsimons Jeanette: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17134] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The real purpose of this bill is finally revealed in clause 112. This is the clause that accepts there will be cases where this bill confiscates title and rights from Maori. It acknowledges that this bill is a confiscation and then it attempts to provide some redress for that confiscation. Subclause (1) states: “but for the vesting of the full legal and beneficial ownership of the public foreshore and seabed in the Crown … that group … would have had a claim for territorial customary rights over a specified area …”. The redress that it provides is a negotiation process at the discretion of the Crown with no requirement for any outcome no requirement for any redress but there is a negotiation process.  
But worse than that there is no requirement for any public notification of who is being negotiated with so the Crown can simply talk to the largest group in the area conduct a private negotiation with them and reach a conclusion. There are to be no ancestral connection orders to identify which iwi and hapu have an interest in particular areas of coast. We have seen already from the treaty settlement process that there are often smaller hapu who are left out of the process and the agreements are made without their participation or inclusion. These negotiations may go on without involving all possible claimants. People may wake up the next morning to find that an area of the coast in which they believe they have a very strong interest is subject to a territorial customary rights agreement between somebody else and the Crown. It is particularly likely in areas of—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I was trying to listen to the member and there was a very loud— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why would you want to? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I think it is very offensive for the leader of the New Zealand First Party to come over and stand just behind me and then hold a loud conversation with Mr— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I did not. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Yes the member did. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I can deal with this. It is a longstanding convention in the Chamber—Speaker’s ruling 57/5—and [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Jones that I am on my feet. 
Dail Jones 
: I wanted to apologise. It was me who was doing the talking. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is understood that there is no comment in that part of the Chamber because of the muffling effect it has on the microphones. I notice that the member has desisted and I thank him for that. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: The Green Party amendment to this clause tries to address this situation. It is in the name of Metiria Turei and it requires notification to and consultation with other potentially interested parties that these negotiations are going on so that they may register their interest and I commend the amendment to the Committee.  
The second amendment removes the requirement to go back to the court in order to have these agreements ordered by the court. There is no particular reason to add this requirement. It causes delay and cost after the agreement has been reached when there has already been a negotiated process and there is already requirement elsewhere that a copy of the agreement should be served on other interested parties Ministers and local authorities. There is no particular reason why the applicant should have to go back to the court to get it all ordered there. All of this of course could have been— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why go to court? Why have the costs of going to court?  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: This is an entirely different situation from an applicant going to court under the original situation—to the Maori Land Court. This is after the Crown has taken away that right and reached a negotiated agreement for something else. One does not at that stage apply to the court to settle something that has already been settled. All of that of course could have been avoided had the Greens’ policy of recognising Maori underlying customary ownership been adopted with an amendment to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act that where customary title was found it could not be turned into freehold saleable title and that public access would be negotiated on that title. Every Maori leader whom I have spoken to about this bill was in favour of that outcome and was prepared to accept it.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Name one. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: I can name lots of them.