Horomia Parekura: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Horomia Parekura: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17244] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 I will continue on the definition and the special status of the common marine and coastal area. The definition sounds like general gobbledygook in relation to the notion of the Minister in the chair the Hon Chris Finlayson that this is something brand new and that it is safe. It is not too different from how the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 defined the area. I think what is more important is that we have now subjected the nation to this notion that the common ground is there and the “commons” as defined by the British was something that was clearly owned by the Crown. At the end of the day that has been twisted to suggest that nobody owns the common ground: the Maoris do not own it the Crown does not own it; it just sits up there esoterically and there is no suggestion whatsoever of who should make decisions on it. But at the end of the day it comes back to the Crown to define it and to ensure that it is there. 
I come to how the Maori Party has suggested that there are limited gains in this bill. The reality is that this bill will not fix the problem. The Maori Party has said that this bill does not settle the issue for it but at the same time it is trying to claim a great victory. So it would be really interesting to understand where the victory is when really it is just a quick shuffle of the pack. It is like the magician who says: “Now I have the white glove” and the next minute “Now I have”— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: The white rabbit. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
:—“pulled the white rabbit out of the hat.” 
Before this bill received even its first reading the acting co-leader of the Maori Party Te Ururoa Flavell publicly stated that the Maori Party would certainly look at it again and there would be another time for his people to come back and have another go at it in the future. But the Minister has been quite explicit about the finality that he sees in relation to this bill. So those are challenging questions and I ask the Minister to comment on them. If it were not for the symbolic value of the repeal and the desire to address the Crown ownership aspect of the Act then an amendment could have been an appropriate solution. 
Earlier in the day I commended the Minister for the sequential way the bill listed “whanau” who generally go to gather and ruku pupu and get the delicacies of the sea; then “hapu” who govern and continue to entertain and ensure that those mana tuku iho rights are covered; and then “iwi” who generally oversee and keep in mind what is important for them and of course the legislation and the Government. So I was fascinated to see in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper that he had adeptly moved things around and caused that sequential order to be reversed. Now we have “iwi hapu and whanau.” I ask the Minister why he did that for what reason what relevance it has in respect of the common marine and coastal area and what relationship it takes in respect of the functions of mana tuku iho. Mana tuku iho is quite explicit. It is that practice that being and that relevance that has been succeeded through the generations by the whanau the hapu and the iwi to supervise. I ask whether the reversal of the sequential order is some code that signifies this Government moving anything that is relevant to Maori up the command channel so it can have its negotiation point being between itself and just iwi never mind whanau and hapu. 
In June Hone Harawira said the proposal represented pandering to rednecks and I have to suggest that to my mind some of the Coastal Coalition’s stuff is just that. Harawira announced he would not be voting for the legislation and left the Maori Party because of it. That is all the theatrics we have seen over the last few days.