Foreshore and Seabed Bill Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Foreshore and Seabed Bill Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:621;Page:17184] 
Foreshore and Seabed Bill 
Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill 
Third Readings 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That the Foreshore and Seabed Bill and the Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. I want to begin by thanking a number of people. I thank my caucus colleagues and particularly my Maori caucus colleagues for their support and their input throughout this process. I particularly thank my colleague Russell Fairbrother for his chairing of the select committee and Margaret Wilson for her continuous expert advice. Obviously I also want to thank New Zealand First members for their support and their careful consideration and advice on a range of issues. I thank United Future. In the end we could not arrive at an agreement but I think the differences between us were not very large at the end of day. I thank the officials who worked hard on this legislation particularly parliamentary counsel who were placed under enormous pressure in terms of some of the processes around amendments. 
This issue has challenged our sense of nationhood and our ability to encompass all the interests in our country. It has been a true test in this House of where parties stand in terms of New Zealand’s national interest and our ability to cohere as a nation. We need to understand some very simple things about this issue. 
The first is that it is about common law rights as they existed in 1840 at the assumption of sovereignty by the Crown. The fact that New Zealand did not become fully independently sovereign until 1947 is irrelevant in that respect. That is why that date is chosen and the fact that most of us who came since 1840 therefore do not qualify is I am afraid just our bad luck. 
Secondly it is about the Crown asserting clear ownership that having been thrown into some doubt in terms of its full meaning by the nature of the Court of Appeal decision in the case of NgatiApa and others. 
Thirdly the Court of Appeal did not say that Maori owned the foreshore and seabed even though that has been repeated any number of times on any number of media programmes that I have listened to and watched since that point. Indeed to quote the Chief Justice she said that before any particular group was likely to succeed in establishing customary land status there were a number of hurdles in fact in law to be crossed and I would assert that in my view those who won the NgatiApa decision were much less likely to cross those hurdles than some others in the country. So in fact it is much less likely that they will lose anything from this legislation than some others might possibly do. 
 Fourthly I think it is clear that this issue arose as an unintended consequence of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. Those who were in the House at the time know full well that that Act was never meant to apply to the foreshore and seabed but was meant to apply to dry land. So in so far as customary land status could be acquired through that Act it was an unintended consequence. 
I have to say I have sat here now for a couple of days listening to National wax lyrical about the failings in laws every one of which that party’s Government passed: the Resource Management Act Te Ture Whenua Maori Act and the Historic Places Trust Act of 1992 I think it was. So when we come to this House most parties are not saying that the process should be allowed to continue as it would have done without our changing the law. Even the Green Party says that we should have legislated to block off the possibility of private title in terms of freehold title and that we should have legislated in some form for access. Only the ACT party and the Maori Party have consistently stood for a clear position of allowing the process to go through. 
The territorial customary rights test in the legislation is high—as it should be under the law. What is in this legislation is not an invention of the common law test for territorial customary rights or aboriginal title; it is a codification in statute of the best expert advice we have had as to what those tests should be. In other words they are the very tests that the High Court should have had to apply if somebody had applied to that court under its inherent jurisdiction and the very tests in combination with the tikanga test that the Maori Land Court should have had to apply if there had been an application for customary land status. We have not imported anything new in that respect; we have tried as far as possible to reflect what the state of the law actually is. In New Zealand this is largely untested law because unlike Canada and Australia we have not proceeded through the common law jurisprudence in these matters in the past. That is why this is different. 
What the legislation does is remove the avenue of customary title. If we are to do that particularly in terms of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court then there must be redress available to those who could have obtained customary title. It is utterly wrong—as was suggested this morning and I will come back to that—that the inherent jurisdiction should be abolished without something else being put in its place. So what we have in the legislation are two options for a successful applicant group in that respect. The first is a foreshore and seabed reserve which is modelled very much upon sections 338 to 340 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act—quite deliberately modelled in that respect. That reserve will enable the successful applicant group to exercise a high degree of influence over the management of that particular area and the coastal management plan that it draws up will have to be taken account of. Indeed more than that it will have to be given regard to in terms of the management plan of the regional authority. Secondly the applicant group can enter into direct negotiations with the Crown in terms of looking at redress which is not money as so often the National Party immediately assumes—that there could be only one form of redress that one could ever engage in. 
I think it is fair to say there will still be disappointment amongst many Maori at the passage of this legislation but that disappointment is based upon a misapprehension of the actual meaning of the law. I want to repeat this because it is so important: the Court of Appeal did not say that Maori owned the foreshore and seabed; it said that the status of customary land could be tested before the Maori Land Court but that there were very significant hurdles in the way of any area of land being recognised. Indeed I think the Chief Justice went somewhat further and indicated that it was likely that only relatively isolated and small areas of land would be encompassed. The fact that 10 percent of the land above the foreshore and seabed is owned by Maori is relevant to only one of the tests in terms of territorial customary rights within the legislation. 
The legislation does provide that non-Maori can test their rights in that respect as well. Here we have had the extraordinary argument that if we end up in the position where the people who at the end of the day get those rights recognised are Maori that makes it racist. That is a most extraordinary argument to put in place. It is rather like saying that the National Party caucus is racist because only one in 27 of its members is Maori. I would not make that claim at all; it is an irrelevant kind of claim to make. It just happens that the National Party represents the rich and the powerful and therefore no doubt Maori are deeply under-represented within the National Party caucus. Equally Pakeha need to respect and acknowledge Maori property rights in the foreshore and seabed. Customary usage rights the great majority of which are fishing rights and are unaffected by this legislation because they are already codified—and what we need to do is get on with the implementation of that law—are a form of property rights. The territorial customary rights we refer to are a form of property rights. If the avenue to achieve those is being blocked off then there should be appropriate redress as the legislation provides. It needs to be even-handed in that respect. The legislation provides the avenues to explore that possibility. 
I have been particularly disappointed at the level of much of the debate from the Opposition throughout this process—in particular the failure of National to engage at a level that suggests some fitness for governing this multicultural country. The Leader of the Opposition told us he would fight this legislation with every fibre of his body. Well some people think he did not mean it; I think he did. I think he did fight this legislation with every fibre of his body up to this point! People realise that he was too busy today reading his two favourite sections of the  
New Zealand Herald 
: Situations Vacant and Help Wanted. But we heard the latest version of National’s position on this legislation late this morning; it changed as the people in the gallery changed. Last night when it comprised all Pakeha National’s position was that Maori were getting everything in this legislation and it was outrageous. This morning at a point when we had mainly Maori in the gallery National’s position started to become that the process should be allowed to be continued. Now that there is a sort of mix up in the gallery I am wondering just what the position of the National Party will be as we move into the third reading! 
But the final position this morning announced on behalf of National by Dr Worth was Crown ownership and nothing more—that is no recognition of customary rights not yet recognised and the abolition of inherent jurisdiction of the High Court without redress or replacement. That would be a constitutional outrage. 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 Finally we come to the third readings of this legislation one of the most fateful pieces of legislation ever to be debated in this House. When the Court of Appeal decision was announced in the middle of last year what we thought was settled law was suddenly overturned. We thought that all New Zealanders Maori Pakeha Pacific Islanders and Asians owned the foreshore and seabed. The Court of Appeal turned that into doubt. What should the Government have done? Well its initial reaction got it about right. It initially said that it would legislate to ensure that the foreshore and seabed belonged to all New Zealanders. Even Chris Trotter said on Willie Jackson’s Television One programme  
Eye to Eye 
 on Tuesday night that what Labour should have done after that Court of Appeal decision was cross the floor of this House and ask for National’s support to pass legislation quickly to re-establish the position in law that we all thought was the case. I have no doubt at all that the National Party would have agreed to do exactly that.  
Had the Government done that all the drama all the anguish all the hikoi and demonstrations and all the anger would have been avoided because the Government would have moved quickly to re-establish the position we all thought was in fact the case. What did it actually do? It embarked on a fundamentally dishonest process that gave the appearance of listening to the public of legislating for Crown ownership of providing strictly limited rights to Maori New Zealanders and of adjusting their proposal in the light of submissions but in reality it changed nothing of substance. It embarked on a process that involved endless hui with Maori long hearings at the select committee stage further debate and consultation and now an unseemly cynical rushed process under urgency to get this thing off the agenda as quickly as possible before the public learn what is going on before Christmas and before the election campaign.  
 It has been a process involving secret deals and backroom agreements with anybody and everybody to secure sufficient parliamentary support and to ensure buy-in from Maori. So we see last-minute compromises with other political parties. “Public domain” becomes “Crown ownership”. Ancestral connection in; ancestral connection out. We hear hints of secret assurances of special treatment for Tainui to try to guarantee the support of Nanaia Mahuta. We see evidence that Labour has entered into secret negotiations with at least four iwi aimed at recognising ownership interests. At the end of this process what do we have? We have a fundamentally flawed—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: From now on we will hear this debate in relative silence. Dr Cullen was given a good hearing. This is an important debate and there will be very few interjections indeed. Dr Brash’s time has not been affected. 
Dr DON BRASH 
: At the end of the process we have fundamentally flawed legislation that will divide Maori New Zealanders from non-Maori New Zealanders for generations to come. Superficially we have Crown ownership of the seabed and foreshore. Superficially we have ownership of the seabed and foreshore by all New Zealanders. If that were the reality the National Party would be supporting this legislation. But it is not the reality. Crown ownership is so heavily qualified that it is meaningless. I take just one example. Ancestral connection has been dropped from the legislation although the Government has made it clear that ancestral connection orders will be taken into account in the review of the Resource Management Act. The Labour Party Maori caucus said on Tuesday that the new plans will provide stronger recognition of the traditional association of whanau hapu and iwi with the coast than the ancestral connection orders initially provided for in the legislation.  
The Government is making it explicitly clear that it reserves the right to hand over ownership of parts of the foreshore and seabed in the context of treaty settlements—exactly as it did with the Rotorua lakes and Te Arawa. The passage of this legislation will mark the beginning of a process whereby control of large tracts of the New Zealand foreshore—the birthright of all New Zealanders—will be handed over to small groups of unelected undemocratic tribal elites. They will be people who can claim some Maori ancestry—often a very small amount. The bill is the result of a Labour Government that is desperate to persuade Maori that they have some continuing and ongoing involvement in the control of the seabed and foreshore while persuading other New Zealanders that ownership is retained by all of us.  
Which party has made this deal possible? New Zealand First. What an extraordinary name for a party that has sold New Zealand and New Zealanders down the river. It has sold us into a world of increased racial division increased racial tension and increased racial dissent by signing up to this sordid deal. Both Labour and New Zealand First have shown their true colours when it comes to treaty issues. The National Party wants to see all New Zealanders—Maori Pakeha Pacific Island Asian young old men and women—treated as equal before the law with a foreshore and seabed owned by all of us not by people who chance to have one Maori ancestor.  
We have seen an inept response from the Government to a controversial decision by our courts. We have seen no leadership on this issue just a Prime Minister blowing in the political wind. We have seen no backbone when that is precisely what was required to bring New Zealand forward as a confident and united country moving into the future. National is absolutely and totally opposed to this legislation.  
The story of Parliament’s management of Treaty of Waitangi issues over the decades has been a saga of neglect and the shirking of responsibility. The important task of spelling out the rights of New Zealand citizens in relation to the treaty has been avoided or even worse abdicated to the courts. The Foreshore and Seabed Bill which now receives its third reading continues and exacerbates this sad legacy. Yet again Parliament has decided that the rights of New Zealanders under the laws of the land are to be placed in the too-hard basket and that our courts will be given explicit powers to determine that one group of New Zealanders is more equal than another.  
In less than 12 months’ time New Zealanders will have the opportunity to elect a Government that will insist that Parliament not the courts will determine the framework of our laws especially as they affect our fundamental rights as citizens. They will have a chance to elect a Government that will insist that laws passed by Parliament will be based on the principle that all New Zealanders regardless of race are equal before the law. They will have an opportunity to ensure that this fatally flawed unprincipled and unfair legislation will never again darken the Chamber of this Parliament. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 There is a famous saying in the Bible: “If the trumpet give an uncertain call who shall prepare himself to the battle?”. I have never seen a more disconsolate and desolate group than the National Party after that speech. Don Brash has been keeping his powder dry and it is still dry. Unbelievable! That speech was a repeat of his first reading speech—nothing new nothing learnt and nothing gained. 
The fact of the matter is that there have been dramatic clauses in this legislation that the mass majority of New Zealanders and Maori will come to believe in. There is one law for all in access egress passage and every other area of the law. 
Stephen Franks 
: Name one. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: There is one law for everyone—the same law. I understand why the ACT party would have difficulty with that because it came here with the strange notion that somehow the right to alienate New Zealand’s foreshore and seabed should be perpetrated in this law. But then we would never know in the end what might happen. That is the kind of anarchy ACT brings to politics. 
That was a first reading speech from the Crimean general. He observed the whole battle from the hillside; at no point did he ever actively participate. He said he would fight this legislation with every fibre of his being. That puts me in mind of Winston Churchill’s famous comment: “Some chicken! Some neck!” Well in this case it is: “No fibre! No being! No presence at all!”. Was the National Party ever in this situation before—a situation where its leader is so bereft of what it takes to be a leader in every respect? 
There is Pontius Pilate! He went to Orewa and made a speech which the media grabbed hold of. But who is responsible for bringing this law about? When will some journalist ask Don Brash why he cannot explain his party’s guilt in this matter? Te Ture Whenua Maori Act was National’s Act.  
Hon Member 
: You voted for it. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No I did not vote for it. That member should go and get the  
Hansard 
 walk back in and tell the House the truth for the first time.  
 Here is my point. If all the matters after Orewa were looked at surely some journalist would have asked Dr Brash the following questions: why is he not taking responsibility for the very mess that has been created here? Was it not the National Party all by itself that created it back in 1993? How could that party get away with it?  
But the mob was out. With a lack of disciplined analysis from the media the myth was immediately begun after that day in June that somehow Maori would own the foreshore and seabed all the way to the 200-mile limit—and I suppose to the Ross Dependency as well. But no Maori leaders could possibly allow that sort of myth to be perpetrated when they knew demonstrably that it was not true—ever. 
The Court of Appeal never said that. Judge Hingston knows that full well—I know this personally—because he never believed that the Court of Appeal would say that sea was land. The Court of Appeal never said that in the way those Maori radicals have claimed. It could barely conceive of any group being successful. 
There is no doubt that NgatiPorou would be an exception. It has occupied ninety percent of its coast and has ever since 1840 without European settlement at all in many cases. But where else in New Zealand could any Maori be successful? 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Karikari Peninsula? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Maybe a part of it perhaps.  
Hon Member 
: Whananaki South? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Or Whananaki South—that is fine. We have been here for a thousand years and we have never denied any access as any European will tell us to our foreshore and seabed. We have never ever conceived of having an exclusive right. 
So the mob is out and there are two extremist positions: one on our right and one on our left. One is saying that when this legislation is passed Maori will get everything and the other is saying that they will get nothing. How can they both be right or have a petition that says sea will become land? 
I want to know how the National Party can get away from its guilt and wipe its hands of that in the way it has. Does it feel responsible? No. I have never heard one word from National members to say they are responsible for this mess. Do they feel guilty? No. How irresponsible is that? How irresponsible is it for people to come along with all their colleagues as guilty as sin and by their behaviour seek to blame someone else? It is always someone else. 
Mr Brian Connell accused me of being nurtured in the bosom of the National Party. That is what he said. I suppose he means Dail Jones as well. The trouble with being in the bosom of the National Party is that sooner or later as one of my colleagues said one feels a right tit. 
That man Don Brash called for this debate; he demanded it happen. He bragged about what he would do. We were promised a right volcano and all we heard in the end was a little geyser. Because he never took part in the debate we ended up with Labour and New Zealand First having to engage in a duel of wits with an unarmed opponent—the worst case I have ever seen.  
Has National ever said even today that it would repeal this legislation? No. Is that not the point? Don Brash has not even said he would repeal the legislation. The reason is that National’s argument is a humbug. It is just a nonsense. 
The National Party launched in Orewa with a borrowed speech. As I said back then and as I say now it is one thing to steal a man’s horse but it is quite something else to stay on its back as one is riding out of town. National members know that. 
Last Saturday National had no idea whether it would join the constitutional debate. Within 3 days it was out—and so will ACT be. The National Party which is bereft of principle and beliefs has trawled through the speeches of other parties has looked at the success of other parties’ strategies and has asked how it can duplicate those and be successful—be believed maybe because Don Brash is the anti-politician except that whenever he is asked about Maori policy he never knows.  
What is really his policy on people standing in the Maori seats in 2005? He said yes when he was first asked that question. He was then asked: “Excuse me but aren’t you against the Maori seats?”. He said yes. He was asked whether he would get rid of Maori Television and he said he did not know. When asked about kohanga reo he did not know. It just goes on and on. 
The middle and right of this country really deserve better. They deserve an alternative Government-in-waiting but they will never get one with that sort of leadership. It is really an abrogation of leadership. 
To close I remind members that we in New Zealand First promised—and I am grateful for the hard work of my colleague Dail Jones on this—that there would be Crown ownership. We promised that there would be one law. We promised that the customary rights originating from common law would be codified in this legislation. We promised all those things. After this Christmas every rational sane New Zealander will ask: “What was that all about?”. Thank God people in this country have New Zealand First because come Christmas paradise will have been restored.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table  
Hansard 
 Volume 538 at page 18189 showing that when Te Ture Whenua Maori Act was passed through its second and third readings it was supported by members of every party in the House including Mr Winston Peters. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That member has just made a statement that he knows full well is not true. I ask you to get him to prove it now.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are in a debating situation. That was not a point of order. The member can have a call in the debate. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 E tikaakeano ki te mihi akeanoi a ratau e tae akeanoikonei nga kanohi Maori mai i te motu. 
[ 
It is apt that I acknowledge those from Maoridom who are present. Greetings! 
] 
Another great Winston said: “We will fight them on the beaches fight them in the trenches and make sure that we go forward.” Another leader in this House said that he would fight against this legislation with every fibre in his body. Quite certainly the acceleration of osmosis would have to happen to get through that thick naive skin.  
This legislation is significant because it clarifies an issue that has threatened this country for the last 18 months. We have heard all the intellectual debate from the over-endowed academia and those who live off the slush fund. I have sat here and listened to those people talk about white people. That is disgraceful. Those same people are pumped up and pontificating about all New Zealanders. At one extreme we have this belief that there is only one way in this country. Rangatiratanga is not about going one way down a blind alley to a hollow end. Rangatiratanga is about our people’s rights. Those people want everything for the white people and the National Party. How sick can we be in this country?  
This is about protecting Maori rights. People who understand what goes on in this building what happens out there and what the impact of that is on our young people’s lives have done something about it. I unashamedly stand here today. I will go down in history as being a part of this. I have the burden of knowing that even at this stage some of my whanau disagree with me in my view that we have made the right choice.  
That is not the end of the matter. The legislation is also significant because of the recognition and protection it gives to Maori customary rights. Maori have rangatiratanga. Out of rangatiratanga is born kaitiakitanga and tikanga. That is not too different from what that Scottish bloke was saying about his clans. He understands it but he does not want it to happen for the Maori people. People accept that they marry some of them. They accept that they are friends because they go to rugby with them and do the haka but they do not want them to get into a better position. Wake up! They should come down to this House more often especially the leaders.  
The legislation upholds the mana of Maori people and certainly—as the great leader of the New Zealand First party said—we have done something about it. We do not get a fair show from the press at times because they want to get the No. 1 ranking on the front page without people having to read the detail. I know they will take a lot more time to do it now. But I tell our young demographic again so we keep this simple that we—the Maori caucus in this Government—have done a lot for our people. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No! 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I tell Mr Brownlee we have not shied away from this. We know the tensions the strains and the anxiety. But this is good legislation. You own what you did in 1992—the deal signed here in Wellington in this House in the dark trading customary fishing rights with no consultation and no hui. That is what they like: the great rubber band stretcher of race—racist comments in Orewa. That is what that was about. It was nothing to do with all New Zealanders. It was nothing to do with this great nation. It was about somebody getting off on himself trying to believe that he could still control the Maoris.  
He says: “You can be tangata whenua in this country but you sit over here because that is what I said in this great place in Orewa.” We talked about the elite. We talked about where everybody else is. This legislation does the right thing. It allows access it creates protection and it creates a regulatory framework. Most of the land that is still held in Maoridom is held in a regulated framework. That land could be alienated which is one of the principal reasons why the Maori caucus stepped up to defend it from the outset. Buy a house buy a car sell it—kei te pai! Inherit something and get it sold—no! If you want to stretch the truth sir be careful especially when you are talking about tangata whenua. All I have heard is the opposite. The other option would take some thinking about because you would not do the right thing by Maoridom. I am more than certain of that. We have done the right thing. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I remind the member to speak in the third person. I was being addressed for most of that debate. 
MITA RIRINUI (Labour—Waiariki) 
: 
 Given that this is the final reading of this legislation and it will shortly be enacted it is time for acknowledgments of various participants in this process. As I follow the Minister of Maori Affairs in this debate I want to take a few minutes of my speaking time to acknowledge the commitment and the dedication he has shown throughout this very arduous difficult process.  
Some months ago at the beginning of this year there was a huge call for the Minister of Maori Affairs to take the rest of his party’s Maori members across the floor and walk from Parliament. I want to say to this House that that was at times a much-favoured consideration. But we sat down as a Maori caucus and gave really in-depth thought to it. This is our conclusion. I am sure everybody around the country has now heard the speech by the leader of the National Party Don Brash. In the light of that speech they must understand why we did not cross the floor and why we did not walk from Parliament—because the alternative was too frightening to think about.  
So I want to take the time to acknowledge the Hon Parekura Horomia. I know there has been a round of acknowledgments by Dr Michael Cullen but I also want to pay tribute to all of those members of Parliament who participated in the processes of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee particularly the chair of the select committee Russell Fairbrother. I had to ask him earlier this year why anybody would want to do it. This is one of those too-hard-basket projects. But he was more than willing to give of his time and stake his reputation to bring closure to this particular matter.  
I also thank the Hon Dover Samuels and Mahara Okeroa. I also thank Dail Jones who represented the New Zealand First Party in the select committee processes. While I say he did play a strong part in bringing the legislation back to the House that is all I will say about him because basically the ownership of this legislation sits with the Government. No reira Mr Speaker mihi akeanaahau ki a ratau. 
[ 
And so Mr Speaker I acknowledge them 
.]  
The sad part about this whole process is that the expectations of Maori have been raised way beyond belief and way beyond what we as a Government or we as a Maori caucus could deliver. That has left a stench. It is the stench of misinformation and the stench of hypocrisy. Many people out there on the hustings were led to believe that parties within this Chamber could deliver on those expectations. Well this is the day of reckoning. It cannot be done. The Maori caucus are very confident that we have protected the interests of all New Zealanders and particularly Maori in terms of customary rights according to common law. Kia ora tatau. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 Let me first acknowledge all of those who are in the gallery today to witness this travesty; those who are outside the Parliament in protest; those who are listening to this debate in their homes in sorrow; those who made submissions against the legislation; and those who were part of the amazing hikoi to Parliament in May. I also acknowledge NgatiApa NgatiKoata Ngati Kuia NgatiRarua Ngati Tama Ngati Toa and Rangitane who all took the NgatiApa case through the Court of Appeal and now are about to have their lawfully acquired rights destroyed by legislation. It is with the deepest sadness that I stand at the third reading of this legislation.  
When I was given the honour of becoming a member of Parliament I looked forward to trying to find ways to make real changes that would benefit my people. The tangata whenua in this country have worked incredibly hard to combat the personal and structural racism that has been a blight on the colonisation of this land. Much of that racism has been expressed in legislation like the Maori Prisoners Act which dispensed with trials for Maori prisoners; the New Zealand Settlements Act whereby 3 million acres of land were confiscated; the Native Reserves Act which took even more land in confiscation; and the Native Health Act which made it illegal for Maori women to breastfeed their babies and adopt under the whangai system.  
In the face of that racism—the legislation that has confiscated our land undermined our tikanga and abused our people—we have nonetheless become very successful. We have held on to our tikanga our values and our identity. We have advanced and developed them. We have been successful in business education law and politics. We have successfully supported our communities. We have achieved in all walks of life and taken on the challenges levelled against us. Our tenacity in our commitment to the restoration of our rights on our own land is exemplary.  
In attempting to restore our confiscated land rights we have used every forum available to us—every commission and every court since colonisation took place right up to the present day. We like other citizens have relied on the honour of the State. In using the forums of the State to assert our rights we have relied on the Government to honour its own processes. In the 3rd millennium after all this work one would expect that our right to be Maori in our own land would be undeniable and that our role as parliamentarians now would be to build on that work to advance the social economic and constitutional position of the tangata whenua.  
But no I find that in accepting this privilege to be in Parliament instead of working effectively for the progression of my people I am thrust back in time 150 years and returned to the struggle against colonial power the struggle to hold up the rights that tangata whenua had even under the colonial common law—fighting the same arguments over the confiscation of land objecting again to parliamentary sovereignty flexing its muscle against tangata whenua regardless of the justice of the issue fighting the same manipulation and deception and fighting the same arrogance and paternalism. No by this legislation this House is returned to the same indecent fight: the fight to be Maori in our own land. This legislation is a direct descendant of the racist legislation of our colonial forebears and to our shame it is done in the name of all New Zealanders. I know from my travels around this country from the submissions from the hui that I have attended from those who travelled on the hikoi and from those outside and on Parliament grounds right now that thousands of New Zealanders are crying out: “Not in our name. No raupatu in our time. No raupatu in our name.” I am proud at least to be here on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa / New Zealand to join our voices to those of the thousands of New Zealanders who object to this unjust confiscatory legislation.  
The Greens oppose this legislation because we are committed to justice and we are prepared to stand up for that principle. We have been tireless in our advocacy for the protection of Maori customary rights. The Government has tried to justify its abuse by saying that Maori customary rights are protected but no amount of intellectual pretzelism nor media spin will change the fact that Maori customary rights are extinguished and that the foreshore and seabed remain under the threat of exploitation damage and—still—sale.  
We have been tireless in our advocacy for the protection of the ecology of the foreshore and seabed; our precious coast. This legislation perpetuates bad environmental management of the coast. Raw sewage is still being pumped into the sea; fragile dune ecology shellfish beds and nesting grounds remain vulnerable to four-wheel drives and other damaging human activity; and inappropriate sale coastal subdivision and commercial development on historical headlands like Tauroa Point still continue. The poisoning of our communities families and children continues unabated in places like Whakatane because of the dumping of toxic mill pulp on the foreshore and the failure of any authorities to take responsibility for cleaning it up.  
Our coast is at real risk. We rely on coastal communities of all kinds taking responsibility for their areas patrolling and protecting the coast and conserving and replanting. Those communities rely on good relationships and cooperation. How are they rewarded by Parliament? Their communities are divided by racist legislation their work is undermined and their commitment is left unacknowledged and uncertain.  
So many hapu and whanau take direct responsibility for the awhi of the coast exercising over decades their tupuna-derived kaitiakitanga. How are they rewarded for their work? They are viciously punished for exercising their tikanga their rights are stripped away and they are treated as pariahs in their own country.  
We make a final plea to this Government: “Just don’t do it.” This Parliament is at a pivotal moment in our nation’s history: to return to our paternalistic past or take the path of justice and peace and we are about to blow it. We will blow it on greed on the desire for power on intellectual fallacies and on political expediency. All New Zealanders will hold this Parliament to account for the wrong that the Government is about to commit. For Maori we have been here before and no doubt we will be here again defending our right to be Maori in our own country. We welcome our Pakeha friends and colleagues who object to this raupatu in their name to join us in this struggle. Together we will continue to seek justice and peace in our country—ka whawhaitonumatouake ake ake. 
[ 
We will fight on forever and ever 
.] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 This legislation is unnecessary precipitate an overreaction fraudulent and based on smoke and mirrors. It has already been called the “Floorshow and Rocky Bottom Bill” and that is about the limit of its worth.  
The ACT position from the outset has been clear and I think that other parties in the House have had the grace to acknowledge that. Our position has been clear and robust because it is based on the sanctity of property rights and due process of law—which are really what this legislation has overridden. The ACT party convened a high-level seminar shortly after the Court of Appeal decision in 2003 and we had constitutional experts and leading kaumatua there. We had a full-day discussion that greatly assisted us in coming to what has been a very consistent and robust position.  
What we see are the unintended consequences of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act of 1993. We had the Court of Appeal decision after a long process. The NgatiApa case decision 
from the Court of Appeal was not particularly complicated; it was quite clear. It simply said that in some instances—and it even indicated that they could be isolated and somewhat rare and remote—there may exist a right for some iwi to pursue their right based on customary rights to acquire title. It was nothing more and nothing less than that.  
It is true that at the various hui that were held around the country various Maori did overreact with some believing that they had full exclusive and undisturbed possession to the heavens and beyond and back to Hawaiki. There was a lot of rhetoric but we should not be surprised by that. Any group would do that. But the point is that this Government has been complicit in the problem in both ways.  
The remedy was quite simple from the outset. It is contained in the Foreshore and Seabed Bill in schedule 3 where there is a nice little clause that does it all. It amends Te Ture Whenua Maori Act by repealing the definition of land in section 4 and substituting the following definition: “ ‘land’—(a) means—(i) Maori land General land and Crown land that is on the landward side of mean high water springs; and (ii) Maori freehold land that is on the seaward side of mean high water springs; but (b) does not include the public foreshore and seabed”. That simple little measure would address this whole mischief of what is widely regarded as the unintended consequences of that Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. Instead we have gone through this incredible debate not just in Parliament but countrywide. There was a lot of anxiety and uncertainty associated with that when that measure is so simple. It is based on property rights and on due process of law.  
The other action that the Government could have taken was to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision to the Privy Council. It could have taken it to the Privy Council. We know why it did not like to pursue that option: it was right in the middle of disassociating New Zealand from the Privy Council and that would have been a bit of an embarrassment and a back-down. So the Government did not pursue that option that was available to it.  
But the real mischief created in this legislation and where the angst and anguish will live with us for future generations is this new regime that it creates. People should be under no doubt or illusion whatsoever that we are creating a new regime to manage the foreshore and seabed. It is racist legislation. It is not racist to uphold Maori property rights—absolutely not. The ACT party would far rather have seen clear specific respected and clearly understood property rights established. If in the public interest the Crown were subsequently to resolve that it needed to expropriate those rights in certain circumstances it could always do that. The Crown often expropriates private property rights in the public good. It should do so rarely and only when necessary but it does have that right and it must pay full compensation when it takes such action. So this Government was not in any form of bind whatsoever.  
What it really wanted to do all along was to grab that wonderful socialist tool the Resource Management Act and put it on steroids—that is what the Government has done. It has put the Resource Management Act on steroids and now we have imported a whole lot of spiritual tikanga provisions into what was always intended to be the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. Now it is the confused management of metaphysical and spiritual matters.  
That is the inherent problem with the Resource Management Act as it exists now before this amendment is passed. I need only remind members that the hold-up of work on State Highway 1 at Meremere was because of a taniwha. There is endless cost and extortion going on up and down this country by various groups exercising a right and a privilege that has been given to them. That is the basis of the problem. It is racist when a right or privilege of control and regulation is conferred on a group of people based on their race or ethnicity—or more particularly on the date that one of their ancestors or possibly more happened to arrive in this country. That is what we are doing as a nation and that is deeply racist.  
It is not racist to recognise customary rights and give proper title where appropriate. That would be a very non-racist policy. But no instead we are conferring on a group of people a privilege that gives them extraordinary powers under the Resource Management Act to hold the country to extortion. It virtually invites that extortion as we have seen for a number of years now under the Resource Management Act. Many New Zealanders find it uncomfortable to talk about that. A lot of developers know that they just have to pay up and shut up because that has become the norm. But that does not make it right and that is what we will now see up and down this country.  
I have already mentioned the example of the taniwha at Meremere which had a lot of publicity. In this debate we have had a lot of reference to the Wakapuaka Estuary in Delaware Bay which I know very well. I worked there with a bunch of scientists way back in the 1970s doing tidal surveys and aquacultural marine life surveys. It is a marvellous place. There are urupa there and we certainly respected them. They are well understood in the local community. But a gate has been put up and access denied over the foreshore and seabed for four-wheel drive vehicles to launch boats.  
The difficulty is that the local iwi who are denying that access are saying they do not like it because it disturbs their urupa. How does that explain the fact that if one pays $100 one can get a key? That is established fact. That is the problem when there are not clear property rights and instead when there are nebulous powers privileges and rights to exercise powers that are not well defined under a tool as deficient as the Resource Management Act. It is that old socialist realisation of the third-way people. One does not have to own it any more in the classical socialist sense; it can be done by control now. That is really what this legislation is all about; the guts of this legislation is an amendment to the Resource Management Act. It is bad legislation and it will be divisive for New Zealand society.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Today is a very sad day for this Parliament and for this country. It is a sad not just because legislation that is of profound significance is being passed through this House under urgency but because it is being passed by a very slim margin in a hotly divided environment. The tradition in this country has been that where substantive measures of this type which transcend political party boundaries but go to the heart of our nationhood are being considered every effort is usually made to reach bipartisan conclusions and to ensure that the progress of that legislation is in a way that is orderly proper and unlikely to be the subject of subsequent division and debate.  
I look at the great moves in the 1990s when the National Party was in power in terms of the NgaiTahu and the Tainui settlements and at the work that was done then to bring the Labour Opposition onside so that the occasions when legislation was debated in Parliament were occasions of celebration and of recognition that something deep and meaningful had been achieved and that the country at least to its parliamentary leaders was standing on the same plane. That is a vast contrast with what we see happening today.  
Before I continue I want to pay particular tribute though to the Deputy Prime Minister who throughout this process since the Court of Appeal ruling last June has worked tirelessly and genuinely to seek a resolution. I think that whatever the political difference Dr Cullen’s contribution needs to be acknowledged. But I am concerned beyond those sterling efforts to note that what we have essentially seen on this issue is a failure of leadership. Last November nearly a year ago I suggested to both the major parties that this issue was so important they should set aside their differences—particularly as we see them expressed today; not being very greatly different from each other—and work for a common solution. Both parties said that was not possible.  
In the wake of the Orewa speech in March I raised the issue again. The ground had shifted a little bit. One party said it was not interested and the other said it was too late for that. Had they put aside their narrow political differences and worked together in harmony recognising that this was an issue upon which New Zealanders were looking for leadership we would not have seen the subsequent disharmony division and bitterness that has divided our nation unnecessarily. When we look at the positions of the respective parties on this point there is vast if not universal agreement that what we all seek is an assurance that the position that each one of us understood was the actual case prior to the court ruling would be maintained; that there would not be limitations placed on people’s right to access various parts of the foreshore and seabed in the way that they always have done; that those traditional areas where Maori had special values and special attachments would be recognised but that fundamentally life would go on pretty much as it had done.  
None of us I suspect had heard too much about foreshore and seabed until a year ago. We knew it was there but perhaps we did not have a great deal of interest in or appreciation of its significance. Now that has all changed. The real issue that this Parliament is now having to confront and our country is having to consider—because this legislation will pass—is: how certain is it? How stable is the environment that has been put in place? What guarantees have we for the future? My colleague Larry Baldock whose contribution I acknowledge moved an amendment during the Committee stage seeking to entrench particular versions or parts of this legislation in an effort to give a sense of certainty that the solutions now being put in place had some permanence. That amendment was defeated.  
United Future parted company with the Government on this legislation earlier in the year over the issue of public domain again for that same reason. We want people to be absolutely certain that nothing will get in the way of their traditional understanding of access to the foreshore and seabed and that there will be no uncertainties ambiguities or hesitations about future Government action in this regard. Legislation passed under urgency—because the primary reason seems to be to get it out of the way before Christmas—in a hotly divided Parliament with protesters on the lawn outside hardly gives an assurance to New Zealanders that this is the end of the matter. I think we now face some serious questions. 
 It is interesting to note from the Leader of the Opposition’s speech as Mr Peters pointed out that there is no commitment to date to repeal the legislation. I suspect that commitment will come at Orewa in January because that will be much nearer the election. The wry smile gives it all away. But the problem with that is that until we put the issue aside the uncertainty remains for everybody. At one level people will say as I heard a commentator say on the radio this morning that they will still be able to go to the beach this summer. That might well be so but at another level we are starting to see sinister and dangerous actions occur.  
I deplore the fact that some benighted group of radicals chose to throw an axe into the Prime Minister’s electorate office today. That is despicable and disgraceful and is up there with that idiot who cut down the tree on One Tree Hill. But the problem is that when people feel disempowered or left out those sorts of actions become their option. Then it will not be too far away before some other idiot decides that he or she can charge people to come on to a bit of land or put up a sign with a restriction stating that people are now entering on to Maori ancestral land or whatever and the whole set of tensions divisions and bitterness that has been so prevalent over the last 12 months is fuelled once again.  
There is nothing to celebrate today. There is nothing to be proud of or committed about. I guess what we can be rueful of is that this is a lost opportunity. It is an indictment of the failure of the two major parties to get together in the national interest and it is a sad recognition that when faced with the opportunity to do something constructive in the interests of our people as a whole we as a Parliament have flunked the test and I regret that bitterly. 
TARIANA TURIA (Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 First of all I thank those who have chaired the House and the Committee through what has been a very difficult process and I acknowledge those iwi in the top end of the South Island who took their case to the Court of Appeal and were then denied justice to go on to the courts.  
Today we are witnessing the death of democracy through the tyranny of the majority. Over the last few days this Chamber has witnessed some desperate cries for credibility from members of the Government whose Maori seats will be sacrificed by the Government to save the general members’ seats. We heard cries of confusion and of complicity and we heard the plea that we need a vision of what New Zealand is today not what it was in the 19th century. Yet this legislation takes us right back to those days a period in the mid-1880s when this Parliament will recall a shameful history where the majority of Maori males were not then eligible to vote on the general electoral roll and at that time we were the majority. To be on the electoral roll males were required to hold a minimum amount of private property whereas nearly all Maori then did not own property individually but communally. What I put to all members today is to show me the difference between then and now.  
This bill is a discriminatory act. It treats private property rights as more important than customary property rights. When I was a child other children used to say: “What’s mine is my own.” Now what Maori children will say is: “What was mine is everybody’s.” The backroom deal with New Zealand First has made an absolute mockery of the select committee process. Only the privileged were listened to and that is everyone except tangata whenua. When members try to convince us that the legislation is all about New Zealanders they seem to forget that tangata whenua are also New Zealanders—a collective group of New Zealanders who have special constitutional status by virtue of the relationship signed up to by all our ancestors Te Tiriti o Waitangi.  
We listened to members desperately trying to convince themselves that the Government is proud of its ongoing fiduciary obligation to tangata whenua. The basis of a fiduciary relationship is that of trust. Does anyone in the House honestly think that tangata whenua will be fooled into thinking that they can trust a Government that has sacrificed extinguished and confiscated the last piece of customary land that we held by default? The only fiduciary relationship we believe in is that vested between tangata whenua and the Crown in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Our position with respect to te tiriti is unequivocal. It is a cornerstone of the constitution of Aoteaora.  
Let us look instead at what the minority Government is pinning all its hopes on—the fiduciary relationship it will have with tangata whenua through the establishment of reserves. Prospective groups must in line with section 34C make application to the High Court to apply for the establishment of a reserve. If successful in their application the High Court then directs them to prepare a charter by which the board will administer the reserve. The High Court then directs as set down in section 34D(a) for the board to be established as a legal entity and then in section 34D(b) the group has to present a charter to the High Court again itemising a host of technical specifications for the new legal entity. Such an exhaustive process for compliance hardly represents to me an action of trust. I recall the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations the other night throwing off that in the Court of Appeal case while there were 34 lawyers acting in the interests of iwi the Crown needed only four. Of course she neglected to mention the huge departmental infrastructure available to the Crown or the unlimited public purse.  
This legislation adds further to the labyrinth of legal processes that our people must push through. New Zealand First the party that has made its name out of criticising the so-called gravy train is now proudly standing by a legislative sham that sets into play an excessive reliance on lawyers. We have gone from the gravy train to the whole railway network. If our people are not to be borne down with the weight of compliance costs the confusion created by this legislation in its use of terminology will be the final straw. The minority Government has tried to mislead our people by promoting the idea that Maori groups that would have won aboriginal title claims can now opt to be guardians of reserves.  
Guardianship is about whakapapa. It is about mana. Contrast that with the meaning of guardianship in the Foreshore and Seabed Bill to mean the members of the board of a foreshore and seabed reserve. In other words a concept that we see as intimately connected to kaitiakitanga is reduced to members of a committee. The terminology promulgated in this legislation for the concept of guardianship is totally devoid of any Maori interpretation. In this legislation creating reserves is just another way of trying to influence Maori into believing that they will have a management right but all those reserves will be subject to the existing rights of access and other laws like the Resource Management Act that protect the coastal areas. The legislation further suggests that kaitiakitanga will be expressed through the review of the Resource Management Act. Given that Maori consultation has always been so poorly carried out in the context of that Act what confidence can whanau and hapu have in the legislation?  
Let me get this right. This minority Government with the full support of New Zealand First will strip our people of their birthright their customary property of takutai moana in exchange for what? It expects us to willingly take on an arduous process of negotiating with local authorities to confirm a management plan. What is even more bizarre is that the members of the board of the reserve the so-called guardians are to do so for the benefit of the public. So they are to manage the service with no capacity to receive any resources or any other form of payment for any activities undertaken as specified in section 34B(2). We are not only being robbed but we are also being asked to do community service for the rest of our lives.  
Maori have experienced the large-scale legitimised theft of land through the policy of raupatu yet we punish Maori and other New Zealanders who steal. Those are the double standards that serve to confuse and enrage our people. Stealing land by Government is accepted as legitimate whereas theft is punishable by law—the so-called one law for all New Zealanders. This nation is tired of doubletalk of deliberate confusion and of unseemly haste. This nation is tired of the divisive intent of this legislation. This legislation never needed to happen.  
We are not on about the fences or the gates. Those are the barriers built by this Government and now New Zealand First that will remain between the peoples of this land and our people and their land. The issue was never about contiguous use. The issue is about tikanga and that is what has been ignored. Two simple changes could have been made to existing legislation—changes to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act to prevent the alienation of land and changes to the Resource Management Act to give certainty to access. A movement was born of this legislation and I want to mihi to a movement that looks to reflect the thousands of New Zealanders who marched on Parliament the thousands who spent more hours writing submissions and the people who travelled here today to demonstrate their grief. The Maori Party on behalf of all those people we represent and for the sake of all our future generations vehemently opposes this legislation. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 After many many hours of debate the House is close to passing this most unfortunate piece of legislation. I say “unfortunate” because if one looks back over the last 24-25 hours in this House and sees and feels some of the passion and the fire that has gone into the various speeches that have been offered by members in this House one will see that this is one of the debates—perhaps the debate—of this term of Parliament where members were truly showing why they had come to Parliament. They came here because they are passionate about making this country better and doing things that are in the best interests of this country. The Government thinks that that is what it has done. A very substantial number of the rest of us think that is exactly what it has not done.  
The National Party does not support this legislation has not supported this legislation and will not be supporting this legislation in the future. Is it not an irony that the National Party today finds itself in agreement with the Maori Party? It is quite an irony. If one looks at the commentary on the bill and sees the report back of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee one will notice that the New Zealand National Party put in its minority view that the way to fix this issue was to deal with Te Ture Whenua Maori Act and to take a look at the Resource Management Act. Both of those pieces of legislation were just offered to the House as solutions by Tariana Turia from the Maori Party.  
I say to Parekura Horomia the Minister of Maori Affairs who has not covered himself with a great deal of glory over the process and passage of this bill that for him to simply point to this side of the House and say that we are the people who dwell in the dungeons of gloom and they are somehow the people of the light is quite wrong. I would challenge him to go out to the front of Parliament now and tell that to those Maori who have come here expressing their upset at the way this law is being passed. When it came to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act being passed in 1993 not one submission to that bill mentioned the foreshore or the seabed—not one. Not one speech in the Committee stage or the first second or third readings mentioned the seabed or the foreshore because the understanding was as far as all were concerned that they were owned administered and looked after by the Crown.  
When the Government saw what was happening as the Court of Appeal moved to its decision last year it should have talked to all parties in this House to uphold what had been a previously unanimously passed bill. But it did not. It ran off into its corner and decided to take a very partisan position—a partisan position that will come back to haunt it because this is the first time a Government in New Zealand has passed a law that is as overtly racist as this one. [ 
Interruption 
] I tell Mr Cunliffe the outgoing member for New Lynn that the next irony is that it is racist on two points. It is racist from the point of view that for the first time ever Maori are now going to be able to talk about their customary rights only in the context of what the courts allow. They will be able to exercise those rights only according to the wills wishes and whims of the Minister of Conservation. So to just say that there has been no diminishing of those rights is quite wrong. I would ask anybody to tell me where those customary rights around this country—rights that are being exercised now and have been exercised for hundreds of years—have actually caused a problem. That is not where the problems are in this country. The problems occur when Governments start to marginalise people—to as Mr Fairbrother would say codify what their rights are. That is where the difficulty comes.  
The legislation is racist on a second count because it tells any New Zealander no matter how long he or she has been here since 1840 that he or she can never have a right that can be recognised in a customary sense. I have to say that I simply do not understand that. Let us suppose that we are 200 years or 300 years into the future. Will we still be saying that 1840 was a break that if people are able to claim ancestry pre-1840 they have extra rights extra opportunities and extra ability to claim parts of the coastline in this country and to administer it but that if one came here after that one will not? That will not endure. It simply will not endure.  
The other thing that I would like to point out is the two very interesting clauses in the bill that weaken its intent and purpose quite significantly. The first is clause 112 and the second is clause 115. Those two clauses when taken together make it abundantly clear that the Labour Government intends still to deal to Maori an opportunity to hold title to various parts of the foreshore and seabed around this countryside. We know that those negotiations are going on. The Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has told us.  
The thing that New Zealanders will find hard to understand is that while Labour is claiming to have sorted this out and while New Zealand First is claiming to have sorted this out in a very short time we will see areas—perhaps the first will be the Raglan Harbour on the west coast of the North Island—handed back to Tainui as part of their ongoing treaty settlement. We are now seeing the nods from the Tainui representative in the House. That makes the whole thing somewhat of a mockery. That is why also New Zealanders will start to turn with a little bit of venom on New Zealand First. They have not thought through their position on this at all clearly. They have not fixed it. They have created an opportunity for significant ongoing grievance. I appreciate that people such as Mr Jim Peters believe that they have done their best but I want to tell them that they had no obligation to fix what was a mess from the very first time it hit the floor of this House.  
Mr Dunne made a very impassioned speech to the House suggesting that we should all work together a lot more closely. Well we all know that Mr Dunne is essentially a man without a uniform strutting around looking for a parade to lead. Well this is not the one to lead because we have a Government that does not like talking to other parties in this House unless it needs a vote. 
 This issue has been out there since August of last year. As Dr Brash said it would have been very easy for the Labour Party members to say to the National Party the New Zealand First Party and every other party in this House: “Let’s have a bit of a behind-the-scenes talk about what we might do.” But there was none of that because that would be taking too much away from them.  
That brings us to the issue of the special select committee that the Government wants to set up to discuss the constitution. We will not be part of that. Even though we gave the Prime Minister 3 days to send us some information about the terms of reference nothing turned up. We thought: “Well if that is the case and we take the experience of the special select committee looking at the foreshore and seabed legislation where the Government spent a lot of people’s time listening to New Zealanders and then turned up with what was virtually a rewrite of the bill without reference to New Zealanders won’t that be exactly what it will do over constitutional issues as well?” Today this Government has signalled to New Zealanders why it is not fit to govern and why it will not govern beyond the next election. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 It would be an understatement to note that this legislation has provoked considerable debate both inside and outside this Parliament. However much of that debate has been about matters not in the legislation. Essentially the legislation recognises common law customary rights to the foreshore and seabed in the context of vesting full legal and beneficial ownership in the public foreshore and seabed in the Crown and guaranteeing general rights of access to all peoples.  
The Foreshore and Seabed Bill arose out of the decision of the Court of Appeal in the NgatiApa case—a decision that created considerable legal uncertainty while addressing the longstanding and important issue of the recognition and content of common law customary rights to the foreshore and seabed. In deciding that the Maori Land Court had jurisdiction to determine common law customary rights the court opened the opportunity for privatisation of title to the foreshore and seabed long assumed to have been held in the ownership of the Crown. Given the fundamental responsibility of any Government to provide good order and stability there was no choice for this Government but to do what it did—that is to clarify the law.  
The object and purpose of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill were set out clearly in clause 2A and clause 3. The object is to preserve the public foreshore and seabed in perpetuity for all New Zealanders including whanau hapu and iwi. The purpose is to vest the full legal and beneficial ownership in the Crown thus guaranteeing public access while recognising and protecting ongoing customary rights.  
Many in the Opposition have argued that the legislation is racist. That allegation comes from both extremes of the Maori and non-Maori opponents of the legislation. Listening to their arguments highlights for me the raison d’etre of the legislation—namely that it balances and reconciles the interests of all New Zealanders.  
When we step back and look at the legislation as a whole and in its context it is apparent that essential elements of it synthesise concepts integral to tikanga and to the values shared by other New Zealanders. For example the notion of a shared common space held in perpetuity in common to both Maori and non-Maori alike is not an unknown concept to all peoples. What Maori also seek however is recognition of their unique tangata whenua status as the guardians of the foreshore and seabed and that as guardians they have specific rights and interests. This legislation gives that recognition in a tangible way through the customary rights orders. It also goes a step further and recognises that if a whanau hapu or iwi group establish territorial rights in the High Court then the claimants are entitled to redress as set out in the bill. The legislation has then in effect incorporated the common law customary rights into statute. This legislation formalises the recognition of common law customary rights and provides a process to determine the nature and extent of those rights and if those rights are established provides a way to enforce them.  
Throughout the various stages of the legislation much has been made of the argument that due process has been denied Maori claimants. It has been argued that it should have been left to the Maori Land Court. Prior to this legislation such a process could have resulted in the privatisation of the foreshore and seabed which was not wanted by most Maori or non-Maori. However the legislation does not deny due process. It provides for both the Maori Land Court and the High Court to hear and determine claims brought under the legislation. It is true that the process cannot lead to privatisation of the foreshore and seabed but it does lead to remedies—those remedies in the form of customary rights orders and territorial customary rights orders.  
During the debate on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill there has been much discussion on the nature of territorial customary rights. This legislation codifies the common law in respect of aboriginal title or customary title. It replaces the current jurisdictions of the Maori Land Court and the High Court with new jurisdictions. The common law doctrine provides for a continuum of customary rights. At one end is uses activities and practices and at the other end of the continuum is full customary rights equating to exclusive occupation and possession. The legislation follows the common law in that respect. However it takes a more liberal position than Australian case law in that it actually recognises that a form of exclusive ownership rights may exist.  
It is important to note in this context that no common law jurisdiction has recognised exclusive customary ownership rights in the foreshore and seabed. In fact the  
Yarmirr 
 case in Australia concluded that there could be no such rights over the foreshore and seabed. It would have been interesting if the Court of Appeal had considered the  
Yarmirr 
 decision in its decision. It is admitted that this is a difficult area of the law and tribute must be paid to Dr Paul McHugh a leading international expert for giving his time and expertise to the Waitangi Tribunal and the select committee. Through his evidence it was possible to develop criteria for a territorial customary title that was consistent with the common law but relevant to the particular circumstances in New Zealand.  
Finally I note that the provision of reserves as a form of redress is based on the notion that in accordance with tikanga the customary interest that Maori had in the foreshore and seabed was one of control and management not ownership as Tariana Turia believes. This remedy then is consistent with common law notions of customary rights and with tikanga which is why the Maori members argued so strongly for its specific inclusion in the legislation. This legislation then is a balance between the interests to preserve customary rights and activities as exercised by both Maori and non-Maori. It grapples with an interest that has been around for a long time and which previous Governments have avoided. The fact that it provoked strong political reaction is not a surprise. However I trust that when the heat has settled and the remedies in the legislation are pursued the legislation will be seen for what it is—a reconciliation of differences through respect and tolerance of the interests and the rights of everyone in this country. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 There is only one flaw in the previous speaker’s argument and it is that it is not what she believed after the case. Two days after the case she said: “Legislate to confirm the fundamental understanding that has prevailed in this country for 100 years—Crown ownership on behalf of all New Zealanders Maori and non-Maori alike.” She was confirmed in that view by the Prime Minister and as we made clear at the time we would have supported a simple proposition and that is what the Attorney-General thought was the right answer at the time. What she has now ended up delivering is legislation that is essentially here at the behest of the Maori members of the Labour Party. That is their clear and deliberate intent. The Deputy Prime Minister knows the truth of it. That is why Nanaia Mahuta almost certainly I predict will be voting for this legislation. They have their private deals in this legislation and the clauses to protect them are buried deep within it.  
Let us just analyse what the bill actually does—because they have this global idea of Crown ownership on behalf of all and they want New Zealanders to believe that that in essence is what the legislation does. Certainly there is a clause to that effect but it is whittled away in the subsequent 100 clauses by a cheese-paring attack on the rights of all New Zealanders.  
So we do have a complex and difficult structure. Let us analyse that. Firstly we have territorial customary rights granted by application to the High Court. That will lead to Maori reserves up and down the country. We understand based on what the Maori members have said to the  
New Zealand Herald 
—they cannot deny this and they will not deny it—that the area will be 10 percent at an absolute minimum. We know where those places are already—Eastern Bay of Plenty East Cape the far north parts of Taranaki and no doubt other parts of the nation. That is the first point.  
The second point is that customary rights orders will come before the Maori Land Court. Is that the right court to be dealing with something in an area of general interest? This is a very important point. It is intended that the foreshore and seabed belong to all New Zealanders irrespective of their ethnicity. The Maori Land Court is specifically set up to deal with land disputes essentially as between Maori. There is a huge new jurisdiction where a court set up for essentially one group of the population will be resolving issues for all the population. The court simply does not have the experience the resources or the background for that role. Those are the sorts of things we would expect at the very minimum to be done by the courts of general jurisdiction—the High Court.  
The third point is the notional concept of customary rights for all New Zealanders which was inserted at the behest of New Zealand First. The only example of course is the Auckland Anniversary Regatta. I am not aware that there has been any problem that the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron has had for the last 163 years. Has it asked for this solution? The answer is no because frankly there is no particular problem. This is a fallacious approach to legislation.  
Then we have a whole range of amendments to the Resource Management Act the effect of which will mean that major strategic facilities that have to be built in places where they do not already exist—and I say that in particular—can now be vetoed. So a particular customary rights holder can veto something to the national benefit for all New Zealanders. That is wrong.  
Finally buried in clause 115 is the provision that enables the Crown and this Government—the Government has made it clear that this is its plan—to alienate the foreshore and seabed from the people of New Zealand to particular Maori claimants. The precedents are already there. They are the Lake Rotorua settlement—an area that was and is owned on behalf of all New Zealanders by the Crown since 1922 in a freely negotiated arrangement. This Government in the 21st century is reversing all of that. It is taking it away from the people of New Zealand and transferring it to particular groups. The Government intends to do that on the west coast harbours. Nanaia Mahuta said that in the select committee Government officials said that in the select committee the Prime Minister said that in the House and the New Zealand First Party has conspired in the process.  
At least the Government has been upfront. I can only assume that New Zealand First members have been duped—that I guess is being charitable to them—because they are betraying their principles. They say they believe in one law for all New Zealanders. Well the only “oneness” is the fact that it is contained in a single document but that document now has two laws—customary rights for Maori and no customary rights for anyone else other than the Auckland Anniversary Regatta. That is frankly absurd. They have betrayed their own principles. So Mr Winston Peters cannot claim and should not claim—because it is a falsehood—to have fixed it. What in fact he has done is to participate in the wrecking. He has now got the right appellation of a wrecker not a fixer.  
I want to talk about two other issues: first the matter of customary rights and second a matter important to North Shore City residents. National did say in its report that it supported customary rights and then it said that there must be a balancing between the interests of the general community and the holders of customary rights. Actually there are existing mechanisms to do precisely that. They are contained in the 1993 fisheries legislation and are known as the taiapure and the mataitai. They do have mechanisms of governance and controls over the use of fishery resources—shellfish and the like—and by and large they work. Similarly we have the example of the mutton birds in the Titi Islands. So we do understand our history and that was the way the issue needed to be dealt with.  
I now wish to turn to the issue of the North Shore city residents. I have to acknowledge that their position was finally protected. It took an enormous amount of work by me as the member of Parliament for North Shore to try to get that into the legislation. 
Dail Jones 
: You didn’t vote on it. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: It finally came in on the very last day—and I want to address that particular point raised by Mr Jones. The National Party sought to vote on the relevant clause because there was only one clause on the relevant Supplementary Order Paper. We sought leave from Parliament to vote on that and we would have voted for that as a separate clause because we recognised the importance of those rights being protected for North Shore residents. Do members know what the Government’s reaction was?  
Peter Brown 
: Don’t tell me they voted against that? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The Government denied leave to vote separately on that important issue. On that Supplementary Order Paper was a whole range of other measures.  
Dail Jones 
: No no.  
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That is very clear. There was a whole range of other measures including— 
Dail Jones 
: Tell the truth for once. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I have read the Supplementary Order Paper in detail. There was another range of measures as well and the Government was expecting us to vote for all of them. So we sought the leave. We said in the purpose for the leave that we would vote for it. The Government in its usual arrogance—and this bill is an example—denied that leave. Having said that I do think that North Shore residents will be well pleased with that result because their rights have been protected. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Perhaps I should start by referring to the last comment of the previous speaker the National Party member for North Shore which reflects on the content of that speech. He referred to Supplementary Order Paper 306 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen as having a raft of other measures on it. It does not.  
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Three issues. 
DAIL JONES 
: I have it here. It has two measures on it. The first is the commencement date which is neither here nor there and the second is the Bayswater Marina - North Shore matter. The amendment to clause 117 of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill amends section 24 of the Conservation Act as set out in schedule 3 of that Act. The member for North Shore has distorted the truth in this House. There were only two issues on that Supplementary Order Paper and it is very clear that the member for North Shore voted against the interests of the residents of his electorate on that particular issue. He is trying to backpedal now. I have voted in this House against the party I belonged to before today. I have crossed the floor on an issue that was important. The National member for North Shore was not prepared to do that in the interests of his electorate and its people. He is now trying to come up with some flimsy excuse for not doing that.  
It is a privilege to be a member of Parliament and especially a New Zealand First member of Parliament because New Zealand First has shown leadership on this issue to all the other Opposition parties. Obviously we have the only leader of the Opposition in this House in the Rt Hon Winston Peters. This has been very interesting legislation. When I was put on the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee everyone said to me that I would be working terribly hard and that it would be a difficult job. But then my alternative on the Justice and Electoral Committee would have been the Civil Union Bill. I am really delighted to have worked on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill instead of that bill; it has been a real pleasure to do so in comparison with the Civil Union Bill. I wish the members on the Justice and Electoral Committee very well.  
There has been a lot of talk about racism and one law for all and this legislation has been described as racist and suchlike. Let us examine where we came from in the NgatiApa case. The New Zealand Court of Appeal in determining that case applied English common law which applies to New Zealand. It is one law for all; English common law is applicable to everybody. The Court of Appeal in that case stated that Maori people in New Zealand had customary rights. Based on what the National Party member has just said the Court of Appeal must have been racist to suggest that one race had customary rights and the other race did not have any such rights. That is the clear inference of the National Party and other Opposition parties to the House on this legislation.  
New Zealand First and the Labour Party believing in one law for all applied the English common law as set out in the Court of Appeal decision and have given effect to it. New Zealand First made it very clear at the very outset on 25 June 2003 that it would support any move to ensure that the Crown had legal title to the foreshore and seabed. That is what this legislation does. We said again that Maori traditional rights of use must be protected but that those rights could not be extended to property ownership on the basis of race. This legislation protects those rights based on the decision in the NgatiApa case on the common law protecting Maori customary rights. That was our policy and we have carried it out. We also said that all Governments must be fair and neutral on matters of race and that is really the genesis of Part 4 of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. We will wait and see in the fullness of time just how effective it is. I believe that it will throw up quite a few surprises for people who have been laughing at it at the present time.  
At no time did the Court of Appeal state that the Crown no longer owns the foreshore and seabed. This legislation has carried out New Zealand First’s policy and has ensured that the public foreshore and seabed is vested in the Crown that rights of access and rights of navigation to the public are protected and that individual fishing rights are protected. That is apart from the Treaty of Waitangi settlements; I am referring to clause 7A of the bill. If someone who is on the side of a wharf wants to throw a line over it or if someone who is on the beach wants to throw a line into the sea that person can continue to do so as usual. There was some doubt about it. We heard the submissions and we put a special clause into the bill clause 7A in order to make that clear.  
In keeping with the Court of Appeal decision and with our view customary rights orders for whanau hapu and iwi based on occupation from 1840 in a substantially uninterrupted way will be available for customary use in the Maori Land Court. The year 1840 is important because Professor McHugh who lectured us at the select committee made it very clear that we had to have a date set out. There was a choice between the Canadian system which would have taken the date much further back or the Australian system in which the date of sovereignty would be 1840—the year in which the Treaty of Waitangi was signed in New Zealand. That date was set and that is the reason why it is there. Of course the Court of Appeal also discussed what are now called territorial customary rights. It has set a very high standard when we look at what Professor McHugh had to say. An extraordinarily high standard is required and that is why the Court of Appeal stated in its decision that very few cases would be successful in obtaining that type of right. The Court of Appeal gave an example of a few rocky places out at sea that may be successful in that respect.  
Some people might have said that because the issue was going to be very difficult they would ignore it altogether. But New Zealand First wanted to enforce the common law. We have codified the common law in this legislation. I must say that the officials who worked on this legislation—the parliamentary counsel the members of the staff of the Government departments and suchlike and our adviser—were of the highest calibre that I have ever seen in my parliamentary career and this is my fourth term in Parliament as some members know. I must congratulate them; they were absolutely excellent. They were asked some of the most impossible questions and they came up with the answers straight away. It was a classic example of how nowadays in New Zealand we have very well-trained people—and dare I say it they are all getting younger and brighter. It is really remarkable. It is a great credit to this country and to its future that we have people of that calibre in New Zealand. They helped me immensely during the course of the select committee deliberations.  
As I have said we also ensured that there were territorial customary rights and that it was a very strict test. It seems to me as a lawyer that if we give people a very difficult hurdle like having to climb 1½ Mount Everests and if they climb without oxygen by the time they succeed they ought to get something at the end of the day. Originally the legislation was vague on that issue and I discussed that with the other members of the select committee. We heard the submissions—we heard from about 1000 people altogether. This legislation is full of answers to the questions raised by submitters up and down the country. We listened to them and that is why there are so many amendments to the bill. The National Party and other parties have criticised the number of amendments. There are amendments to the bill because we listened to the people of New Zealand who came before the select committee. It would take me at least an hour to go through all the submissions and answer all the questions that were raised. so I just say that in passing. Of course our staff had to work on the amendments in a way that would make sense. At the end of the day someone who wins a case ought to get something and the provisions for foreshore and seabed reserve and guardianship express the view of the committee. And of course there can be discussions with the Minister.  
The issue of the foreshore and seabed is very simple. The Court of Appeal made a decision. It set out the common law rights. Parliament took them up. We have made sure that the foreshore and seabed belong to the Crown because that was always the law. The legislation has included customary rights orders for Maori groups. It has a territorial customary right order which is a very very heavy test to pass. Of course there is Part 4 of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill that has ensured one law for all. There has been a lot of huff and puff around the whole issue. It is unfortunate that for a while there was a public domain issue. Mr Dunne made a very good point about how people should have got together and discussed the issue. He mentioned the Labour Party dealing with the National Party. But the National Party was not willing to talk so the Labour Party came to see New Zealand First as the next-largest party in this House. We had set out our view earlier and we have maintained that view throughout. We said what we meant in June 2003 and we persisted with it. It is the correct view. There was a problem. We analysed the case and came up with a solution. Could we fix it? Yes we could—and we did. 
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 A tuatahi he mihi maioha ki te koroheke e takoto mai anai te marae kei Turangawaewae. Takoto e koro moe mai okioki. 
[ 
In the first instance a loving tribute to the elder lying in state at the Turangawaewae Marae. May the elder lie there sleep rest 
.]  
I just wanted to acknowledge the passing of a grand uncle Tumate Charlie Mahuta who is now lying in state at Turangawaewae Marae. As his net is cast aside I guess people are getting ready to cast a new net. When people reflect on this issue of foreshore and seabed they probably will never appreciate the crossroad that the country had come to in May this year. It was a time when the country had a real opportunity to confront the travesty of its own history and not to repeat the same mistakes. Instead fear-driven statements and articles took the headlines and the media. Now it is fish and chip paper. So what will people remember? I think some will think that not enough change has occurred and some will think that some has today. One has to wonder whether we will ever learn from the mistakes of history. But we all know here today as parliamentarians that politics is the art of the possible. 
The question of moving common law rights into statute was bound to challenge any Government. The foreshore and seabed legislation has had a tumultuous journey from beginning to end right up until this point. The level of opposition from Maori is a concern and should be an ongoing concern for every member in this House. When we have legislation that protects existing private property interests compensates local authorities for the removal of their interests and introduces a protection mechanism for Maori customary rights that they do not agree with one can bet these matters will have to be revisited.  
All that is required to pass this legislation is the consent of Maori and that has not occurred when it mattered most. Notwithstanding that it is no good just to recognise the problem. We have to work in Parliament and in Government to be able to effect some change. I have worked hard through the parliamentary process to try to effect as much change as possible. I will highlight some of the causes that I believe may be opportunities for Maori in the Government Supplementary Order Paper.  
Firstly I refer to new clause 2A the object clause in the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. It provides for the protection of all citizens’ rights having first provided for and protected Maori connection to the take tai moana. It is an implicit statement of a fiduciary responsibility on the Crown. Clause 11 makes it absolutely clear that the full legal and beneficial ownership of the foreshore and seabed is confirmed in the Crown and does not affect the customary rights provided for in Parts 3 and 4 of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. That again reinforces that there is an inherent fiduciary obligation.  
New clause 28 in that bill recognises customary rights which in effect are customary title. It is the clause that may have to be revisited at some point because the test to confer a territorial customary right is based on the contiguous land test which in itself is a very high threshold. Even Dr Paul McHugh indicated that while contiguous ownership is likely to be necessary it may not be in itself sufficient. I think that consideration should also be given to tikanga in fixing the scope of evidence back to 1840 in order to award a territorial customary right. I hope such matters can be taken care of by the High Court and I believe that at some point this matter will need to be revisited.  
The inclusion of a redress measure is also a positive gain and many members before me have talked about the provision of a foreshore and seabed reserve. It is largely based on the Okahu Bay model and more accurately transfers decision making back to local peoples and that is where it should be.  
The final clause is the protection mechanism that ensures that all treaty settlements past present and future will not be affected by this legislation. This gives an absolute undertaking to those outstanding claimants that their ability to reach a negotiated outcome whatever it may be is protected. There are many outstanding claims throughout the whole of the Tainui electorate. Notably so are the outstanding claims for Hauraki Waikato and Maniapoto along their respective coastlines. But there are many more claims in other iwi so this clause protects all their interests.  
It is my sincere hope that the territorial customary rights or customary title as I would call it can be awarded. Only time will tell. I hope this Parliament does not wait too long to address two fundamental issues to enable access to justice via the mechanisms proposed in this legislation. First is the matter of legal aid. I believe we should support groups applicants to take cases to the High Court and second to get a reconsideration of the contiguous land test to establish a territorial customary right which I commented on earlier.  
I expect that many New Zealanders are listening to this debate. Many will be Maori all will be New Zealanders and many will be disappointed with the lack of progress. This is the world we live in. We can be effective only if we continue to find ways forward that bring peoples together and move them forward together respecting one another’s difference and diversity and where their starting points are. More needs to be done in this area and it takes the commitment of the whole of this Parliament. Violence simply will not do neither will a civil war. We already know through world events that this is not a solution. It is unacceptable and none of us should tolerate it anywhere on any issue in New Zealand.  
I know that the legislation is not supported by the confederation of iwi in Tainu. Waikato Maniapoto Hauraki and Raukawa do not agree with many of the mechanisms contained in it. They have not really had the chance to hear it. I suspect their path will be one of a negotiated treaty settlement outcome. The door is open for them and I will continue to work hard on behalf of the Tainui electorate to assist and support them. I regret that a better process did not secure a more comprehensive mandate of whanau hapu and iwi whose rights this legislation fundamentally affects. It is for this reason that I will not be standing on the Labour Party list and the electorate will have the final word on this at the next election on my ability to represent them in the Tainui electorate.  
This bill does not need my support to pass. My decision to support the Government is pure pragmatism a political judgment and it seems to me that by taking this step the door is open for the electorate of Tainui for all constituents for all iwi whanau and hapu to work with a Government that is committed to trying to get things right and we all have to start somewhere. 
No reira ko ngakorerowhakamutunga mai itokutupuna a Mahutai te waikonei ia “I haere Maori atu i hoki Maori mai.” Ana i te mutunga ka hoki katoa tatou ki te kainga. Ka mutu. Kia ora. 
[ 
So my ancestor’s final words when he was here were: “I went as a Maori I came back as a Maori.” In the end we will eventually all return home. I end here. Thank you 
.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The last call will be split into two 5-minute speeches. 
MAHARA OKEROA (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
Tuatahi kei te kopikopikoai te mahunga o teneina te tamaiti o Parihaka ki te tihi o Maunga Taupiri e raukawakawaana e piuaai e nga hau e wha. 
[ 
Firstly the mind of this child of Parihaka meanders to the peak of Taupiri Mountain shrouded there by the mantle of grief and the buffeting of the four winds.] 
I stand in the House today to show my support for the third reading of the foreshore and seabed legislation. It is about protecting the rights of my tamariki and my mokopuna and of everybody else’s mokopuna because that is the litmus test. It is inevitable that one day they will ask me to tell a story—a story about the foreshore and seabed and about the challenges that I my colleagues and others overcame. They will ask me why people made such a fuss over legislation that cemented Maori rights in law and why parties tried to stop the Government from preserving the rights they now enjoy. 
More important they will say: “E koro why did you support the foreshore and seabed legislation?”. I will say to them: “Moko we fought for you. We fought for your rights. We wanted you too to enjoy the freedoms we enjoyed when we were growing up. We wanted you to be able to do the things we have always done on the beaches of Aotearoa nui atu without a worry in the world.” I will tell them we supported that legislation so many years ago so that the tikanga of our people would be recognised acknowledged and respected. 
They will then ask me: “Why did other parties try to stop you from protecting our rights to the foreshore and seabed?”. I will tell them: “My colleagues and I believed in uniting Aotearoa New Zealand. We believed that the foreshore and seabed legislation would enable New Zealanders Maori and non-Maori to feel a sense of certainty about the use of the foreshore and seabed.” I will tell them that Don Brash and the National Party just did not—could not—understand the significant relationship that we as Maori and others have with the foreshore and seabed. They did not want our rights cemented in legislation; they wanted Maori rights to disappear altogether. They ignored Maori rights. 
My mokopuna will then ask me: “E pa who was Don Brash?”. “Well moko” I will say “he was a man who had one hit one wonder speech but you are not to worry too much about the history of Don Brash because he didn’t do anything special in the short time he spent as leader of the Opposition.” 
My moko will then say to me: “Koro the kids at our kura asked us who the Maori caucus was.” I will tell them that the members of the Maori caucus in the Labour Party were people who fronted up for the rights of Maori and also for the rights of non-Maori—rights that they now enjoy. Those members did not walk away; they did not shirk the huge challenges both political and personal. The message in that is that if you are to be a politician stay in the tent and fight the good fight.” 
My moko will also ask me: “What was the foreshore and seabed legislation all about?” I will tell them that it was legislation that did more for Maori than any other legislation could ever do. I will tell them it was about finding a solution that would strengthen the whole nation and take us forward as a country about giving certainty security fairness and balance about protecting the customary rights and interests of Maori in the foreshore and seabed and about making bloody sure that everyone would still be able to have access to the foreshore and seabed. 
 Finally my moko might ask me: “Did you know the Rt Rev. Winston Peters?” and I would be taken away with a gasp. Some people may see him as that but I would have to correct my moko and say he was not the right reverend but the right honourable. They might say: “Can you tell us about him?” and I would say: “I can tell you moko that he and his party supported this legislation into law. To say otherwise moko would mean another storytelling session about the life of Winitana Peters.”  
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou. There is a proverb in Maoridom that says: “Hinga atu te tangata whanau mai te tangata kei te harurutonungangaru kei te pikitonu te tai kei te heketonu te tai—it does not matter what happens to man. They are born and they die. But you will hear the waves and the tides go back and forward forever.” 
I will acknowledge some of the comments that have been made by my colleague Mahara Okeroa. A little while ago there was a hikoi. It was a time that we had to make a decision. Our people were carried down here on a wave of emotion. A lot of that emotion was innocent a lot of it was misinformed and a lot of the people did not know the facts. Some people opted out during that emotional tide and jumped the waka. 
My colleagues and I thought about it very deeply because we also were caught up in that emotion and that tide. We sat down and talked together and had a karakia together and we made our decision together. To fly the white flag and to surrender was not an option for us. We knew that we had to stay in fight the good fight and represent our people. We were not going to surrender. That was not the nature of our tupuna who fought in the Maori Battalion when they were faced with unbelievable odds. We believed that if we stayed with the Government—if we stayed aboard the waka—we could better the future for our people. For those who decided to jump the waka kei te pai that is their business but for us as a Maori caucus we were determined to stay because we understood the political reality of the options. 
We heard an option presented by the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. He said he could have fixed this issue very simply with some sort of bipartisan approach to amendment of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act—that that would have been a simple way to go. I want to reiterate to some of the bush lawyers members of the Green Party and the Maori Party that that was a real option—to have a bipartisan approach to amend Te Ture Whenua Maori Act so that it was clear that the intention of Parliament at that time was that the Maori Land Court did not have jurisdiction at all to hear the case involving seabed and foreshore. 
I believe that there was no intention of Parliament at the time that the Maori Land Court have jurisdiction under the sea and on the seabed. But if that had happened it would have reconfirmed absolute Crown ownership. That is what would have happened—Gerry Brownlee agrees with that; I can see him nodding his head—because that was deemed to be the situation before the Court of Appeal decision. Three previous pieces of legislation indicated that. We saw that and we looked at it very carefully and we said to ourselves that we would not waka-jump because we would not betray and desert our people in times of need. The rest is history. 
We have battled into the late hours. I pay tribute to the Deputy Prime Minister for the way that he handled the negotiations. He knew that we had a different position. I pay tribute to him and to the chair of the select committee Russell Fairbrother. We took a lot of flack in the select committee. We were called niggers and traitors. One of the female employees working for the select committee who is employed by the Clerk of the House was even assaulted by a member of the Maori Party and supporters of the Maori Party. It was an insult to the process. And those people talk about karakia and tangihanga and the love of the land! 
I am proud to be part of this Labour Maori caucus and this Government. I have always believed that it will do the right thing by our people. Tonight I am the final speaker and I want to thank the Government the Labour Maori caucus Dail Jones and the New Zealand First Party. No reira kei te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Tena koutou tena koutou kia ora mai anotatou katoa. Kia ora tatou. 
[ 
And so I acknowledge you all. Greetings to you and to us all. Thank you 
.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Foreshore and Seabed Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a third time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a third time.