Jones Dail: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — First Reading 
Jones Dail: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12740] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First would prefer to have this matter dealt with by the Privy Council and hopes that the current appellant to the Privy Council will continue with that appeal. We will have to wait and see what happens there. Unfortunately future appeals to the Privy Council have been ended as a result of support by the Greens for the Government’s legislation. 
I will do something unusual in this debate and quote from what the Court of Appeal said. It said: “Maori customary land is defined by the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act and is land that is held by Maori in accordance with tikanga Maori. It refers to lands owned by natives under their customs or usages. Such property was not the creation of the Treaty of Waitangi or a statute although it was confirmed by both.” What the Court of Appeal is saying is that what we are looking at today is a decision based on English common law. It is not related to the Treaty of Waitangi. 
The court also said in paragraph 89 as I have indicated that what is at stake “is a matter the Maori Land Court would have to consider as a question of custom and usage.” There is nothing there about getting fee simple titles but custom and usage in accordance with tikanga Maori and of course ahi ka. That is what this legislation is about is it not—proving that one can go back to 1840 and establish one’s ahi ka? 
That is what the Court of Appeal said and that is what this legislation does. That is what New Zealand First wanted when on 25 June 2003 in a speech by the Rt Hon Winston Peters it said: “New Zealand First will support any move to ensure the Crown has legal title to the foreshore and seabed.” That has been done; that is our policy. “We also seek assurances that legal title extends to the other parts of the environment where ownership could be disputed.” 
Mr Peters went on to say: “Maori traditional rights of use must be protected but those rights cannot be extended to property ownership on the basis of race.” Now there is no question of property ownership in this bill but Maori traditional rights of use are protected in keeping with the Court of Appeal decision. That is what New Zealand First wants to achieve. When the Labour Party came to us with legislation which was virtually what New Zealand First said was the basis of the Court of Appeal decision what could one do? One had to support it. 
Now ahi ka is a long-established exercise—the burning of the fires of occupation. Captain Cook saw it at Mercury Bay in 1769. It is well established. The example given by Mr Brownlee shows that he does not understand ahi ka which requires continuous fires of occupation. The example he gave was not continuous—that is the difference. It will not be easy to do this and to some extent that is why there is a bit of concern from the Maori community. 
There is no question about that ever in my time in this Parliament—and I look back to 1977 when we had the Territorial Sea Contiguous Zone and Exclusive Economic Zone Bill. We passed that legislation to say that the seabed was vested in the Crown. In that House we had Matiu Rata Koro Wetere Ben Couch Rex Austin WhetuTirikatene-Sullivan and Brownie Reweti. None of those members objected to the Crown owning the seabed through that legislation. Similarly in respect of foreshore and seabed legislation I know of no one who has ever objected to the Crown owning the foreshore and seabed. So it has been well established for a long time in this Parliament that the Crown has owned the foreshore and the seabed. 
New Zealand First has looked at this bill. It guarantees the public the right to be in or upon the public foreshore and seabed the right to enter remain in and leave the public foreshore and seabed and to enjoy the public foreshore and seabed. No ancestral order or a customary rights order made under part 3 subpart 2 or under part 5 of the Act can limit or prevent those rights from taking place. So if anyone has an ancestral connection order or a customary rights order that still does not permit them to exclude any New Zealander from going on the public foreshore and seabed. When my wife goes for a walk on Takapuna beach she will retain that right.