Fairbrother Russell: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Fairbrother Russell: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17158] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I am delighted to have this chance to speak particularly when NgahiwiTomoana the chief executive officer of Ngati Kahungunu is in the Chamber. Ngati Kahungunu of course have responsibility for a huge part of New Zealand’s coastline and this bill affects very much tribal Maori in my electorate and its environs. 
I want to discuss the title of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. That title of course is a code. The real title should be the “Property Rights Recognition Regime Bill” but if it were called that we would not know what property rights we were talking about. So it has to be boiled down to foreshore and seabed property rights because this bill is entirely concerned with a property rights regime relating to the foreshore and seabed. 
I find it surprising that ACT is critical of that property rights regime and even criticises the wahi tapu aspects because in the report of the select committee ACT described the sanctity of property rights. Of course sanctity is holiness. It is a spiritual concept so ACT must therefore endorse the wahi tapu aspects of this bill which has exactly those aspects. But logic has never been part of ACT philosophy. 
Logic has also evaded all the speeches from National members particularly when they resort to that fatuous label of racism. The use of that term shows either their inability to read the bill and understand its concepts or a basic dishonesty in the way they approach their arguments.  
The characteristic of property is that there is a degree of exclusivity—a degree of ownership and control. What are the property right regimes in this bill? The property rights characteristics are that the rights must have been in existence in 1840. There is some exclusivity. They must have been in continuous existence and have been controlled by the same group since 1840 and they must have continued in that way to the present time. That is the determination of the property right. 
Because that right may apply more to Maori than Pakeha or only to Maori and not to Pakeha—no one can say which—it does not make it racist. It makes it no more racist than to say that the children of the rich who fund the coffers of some of the parties in this House are not entitled to that money because they inherited it. The elitism that comes by the old-school network in this country and that is perpetuated by the bandwagons it pushes is no worse than the property rights Maori are entitled to because they were here and exercised those rights from pre-1840 to the present time. 
Property rights are colourless. Property rights are not morally bound. Property rights are not determined by the colour of one’s skin one’s secular orientation or even one’s gender. Property rights are neutral on all those issues. The fact that some people qualify for property rights over others is part of the sanctity of property rights that ACT proclaims and in that respect this bill and ACT have something in common and ACT still has time to recognise that publicly in this Chamber. 
We have heard from the Green Party and we have heard some interjections from the Maori Party—and I must say “interjections” because that party has refused to take calls to explain its position on this bill. It claims that this is confiscation but it cannot be confiscation if it is codification of an existing property right. I think the argument that it is confiscation goes one step back and says: “Ah! We had rights once to property which have now gone. This Act does not now deliver on them therefore it is confiscation.” 
The Maori Party is really saying that this bill should include a grievance process such as in the Waitangi Tribunal. Well the bill does make reference to that because it states that it does not interfere with any rights to claim under the Treaty of Waitangi through the Waitangi Tribunal. So any rights that are no longer in existence today but will be in existence tomorrow and were valid once become a matter of grievance claim under the Treaty of Waitangi. There is no confiscation. The words codification and confiscation have similarity only in the first two letters. Other than that they are different concepts and have different uses. To confuse codification with confiscation is at best laziness and at worst a lack of candour. 
I want to talk about Mr Nick Smith’s hysterical contribution to this debate. Someone said he does not need a judge he needs a doctor but I am not sure— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member will withdraw that remark. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: I withdraw. It seems to me that if the man would take some method to calm down and consider the concepts then he would realise that Part 17 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act is what is reflected in the reserve provisions in this bill. It is a well-established regime.