Cullen Michael: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Cullen Michael: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17146] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I think that speech demonstrated what we have seen throughout this entire debate which is the shallowness and the confusion in the National Party’s arguments. The member Gerry Brownlee should have been here perhaps last night and this morning when some of his colleagues started to argue that we should allow the current court process to proceed to conclusion. Indeed Dr Hutchison came perilously close to justifying the violence that occurred overnight on the basis that the Government provoked it by not allowing that court process to proceed to conclusion. That of course would result in the creation of new private title to the foreshore and seabed. That would occur because customary land status granted under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act could then be translated into freehold title by a relatively simple procedure.  
The irony is that only two parties in this House support that for two opposite reasons: the Maori Party because it believes there would be a lot of customary land status granted and the ACT party because it believes there would be very little customary land status granted. The Green Party did not support allowing the current court process to proceed through to conclusion; it was going to block it off in a number of different ways.  
Metiria 
Turei 
: Oh rubbish! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Well blocking off alienation and blocking off other aspects is to interfere in the current court process. The current court process under NgatiApa would lead to the acquisition of alienable private title over the foreshore and seabed and legislation would be required to overturn and overrule that. If the member has not understood that she has understood nothing about this issue. 
We then have had this repeated nonsense that somehow or other we already know that more than 10 percent of the foreshore and seabed will be in foreshore and seabed reserves. Let me emphasise again that the test for territorial customary rights is a high test as is the common law test. All that this bill does is to codify in statute what the best received expert advice is on what those common law tests should be so that they are placed beyond doubt. It will now be for the court to decide how that is interpreted.  
Ten percent of the foreshore and seabed is owned down to the mean high water spring by Maori under Maori title. It is far from true that that necessarily translates to it having foreshore and seabed reserve status because there are other tests to be met including that of exclusive use and occupation. So the member is wrong on that. That is in the bill it is in the Act and it is clear that the court has to apply that test of exclusive use and occupation. Indeed Mr Grant Powell has complained today that the test is too high. The irony is that if the tests were properly applied those who succeeded in the NgatiApa case would have a very low prospect of qualifying in any case because they have had continuity interrupted since 1840. That is unlike say NgatiPorou Whanau-a-Apanui and people in the north and elsewhere where that continuity has not been interrupted; they are far more likely to be able to meet some of the tests within this bill. 
What the National Party has never managed to explain having said that customary rights should be recognised is how they should be recognised. National members have tried to imply that somehow or other one can have one’s cake and eat it; that somehow or other customary rights can be recognised without our providing for a regime that enables that to be followed through. Of course there is therefore some degree of complexity in that respect. The real purpose of their argument throughout has been to create the image that control over the entire foreshore and seabed is being handed over to Maori and that the current process is just that in drag. That is merely designed to work up Pakeha fears. Indeed we do not yet know whether the axe that went through Helen Clark’s electorate office came from a disgruntled Pakeha worked up by the National Party or from a disgruntled Maori worked up by the Maori Party. We have not yet managed to work out whose fingerprints were on the axe as I understand it and it is pretty hard to tell from fingerprints whether it was a Maori or a Pakeha who threw it in the first place. Let us not jump to conclusions in that particular respect because that party as well has been pretty keen to wind up hatred and violence within society around this particular issue.  
I congratulate New Zealand First and indeed United Future although we could not agree in the end. We have all tried to seek a solution to this situation that recognises the rights of all New Zealanders. This party and this Government are proud to be presenting a bill that does that. At the end of the day people will find that nothing actually changes dramatically compared with where they are at the present time.