te Heuheu Georgina: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16983] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 That member’s days as the electorate MP for Waiariki are numbered. However it was good to see him on his feet. I am pleased to rise in the debate on Part 1. I want to make some comments about other comments that have been made by members particularly members from the Government side of the Chamber. Dover Samuels showed the arrogance of a Labour Government member when he commented about the Opposition “blah-blahing” on about the late introduction of a significant Supplementary Order Paper. It does not matter whether we got Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen only yesterday; it matters to the New Zealand public that that Supplementary Order Paper was not open for scrutiny by people outside this House. The only reason we are here is to represent the interests of people outside this House so we need to get it right.  
Dr Cullen had a bit of fun directed at the National Party when he talked about a brown face on the Opposition side of the House having a part in drafting this law. He and the Maori members on the Government side should get with the plot. It is a brown face that will ensure this legislation passes into law—and no credit goes to that person. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Where is the brown face in the National Party? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: The brown face I refer to does not sit on the Government side of the House. So no matter how much the Labour Maori MPs puff out their chests and pretend that this is their bill and that they have delivered a lot for Maori it is not a brown face over there on the Government benches that has done that. In fact it is Mr Peters. If Government members look in the mirror they will see his image staring back at them. But of course it is no credit to Mr Peters that he has supported this bill. If this bill is good for Maori why is it that Tariana Turia walked and why is it that Nanaia Mahuta is still hedging her bets? She voted against the bill in the first reading and she is still hedging her bets. So Government members should not puff up their chests and say this legislation is great for Maori. In fact they should not even puff up their chests and say it is great for all New Zealanders because there are uncertainties in it and that is where the rub comes.  
Dr Cullen also wrongly stated that I have said that Maori are not getting enough. That is not a statement of mine. What I have commented on is that Maori are not getting the thing they wanted the most which is due process of law and the right of all New Zealanders to go to the courts—and that comes from a Government that for all but 3 of the last 70 years has enjoyed the overwhelming support of Maori excluding me of course. I am as keen as anyone to ensure that the rights of all New Zealanders to our foreshore and seabed are protected. Of course balances have to be found. That is where we come to the object clause clause 2A which on the face of it sounds good. It states the object is: “to preserve the public foreshore and seabed in perpetuity as the common heritage of all New Zealanders in a way that enables the protection by the Crown of the public foreshore and seabed on behalf of all the people of New Zealand including the protection of the association of whanau hapu and iwi with areas of the public foreshore and seabed.”  
On the face of it that it sounds good but when we look into the detail of the bill we see that uncertainties remain. If the Minister in the chair will not clarify some of those uncertainties then perhaps Winston Peters who is actually the main person who is getting this bill through Parliament should be sitting in the chair. The uncertainties are issues like these. When Maori go and get their customary territorial rights what rights will they actually get? When the Labour Government says to New Zealanders that their rights of public access will be protected how will those rights be balanced on the ground? How will they be balanced on the ground when Maori have certain customary rights that will be defined and then the Government also says public access will be guaranteed?