Jones Shane: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — First Reading 
Jones Shane: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:14015] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 A kia ora ano tatou. I te tuatahi ki te reo Maori. Tena tatou e noho nei i roto i tenei Whare. Te matotoru o tatou e amene ana kia pahingia ai tenei ture takutai moana te Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. 
Kei toku rohe he temepara no te Hahi Ratana. Tana ingoa ko Te Takutai Moana kei roto Ahipara. Take i huangia ai ta te mea koia tena te huarahi i hikoi ai te poropiti te mangai o nga morehu a Wiremu Tahupotiki Ratana i tana haerenga ki Te Rerenga Wairua ki te whakatau i tana kaupapa ki tetahi wahanga o Te Rerenga Wairua e korerotia ake nei ko Nga Atua Peruperu. Nona e hikoi ana katahi ka tatu i a ia me hua e ahau he temepara hei whakamahara i toku iwi Maori ko te takutai moana he taonga mai i te wahi ngaro. Na reira he tautoko i te wairua o o tatou korero i tenei ra kia kauwa rawa tatou e waiho i tenei kaupapa hei kaupapa wehewehe waenga tonu i a tatou tetahi iwi ki tetahi iwi Pakeha ki te Maori. 
Tua atu i tera e tika ana kia whaki matou o roto i te Ropu Reipa ara atu ano wetahi mahi kihae i oti tika i a matou i te wa e Kawana tonu ana matou. Take tena i whakapuaki ai a Dr Cullen i ona whakaaro. Ara noa atu nga wahanga i tino hapa ai te Ropu Reipa i te hanganga o tenei ture. 
Tetahi atu take hei mahara ma tatou ko te wa i ara mai ai te hikoi te hia ranei mano tangata i pau i a ratou te nuku roa o te motu te hikoi ehara i te mea mo tenei pire anake te iwi Maori i hikoi ai kahore. He hiahia ano ratou ki te whakataetae atu ki te wairua poke i ara mai i a Don Brash me ana korero hanihani ki te iwi Maori. Otira i te korenga o matou nga kaitorangapu i tera wa i mohio me pehea tenei take kaupapa rainei e whakataungia ai kia kauwa tetahi wairua wehewehe e tomotomo mai ki waenga tonu i te marea horekau i oti tika i a matou. 
Na reira tena tatou katoa. 
[ 
Greetings again to us but first some comments in Maori. Greetings to us seated about in this House. There are a lot of us wanting to pass the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill.  
In my region of Ahipara is a Ratana Church temple. Its name is Te Takutai Moana. The reason this temple is mentioned is that that was the path taken by the prophet and mouthpiece of the survivors Wiremu Tahupotiki Ratana on his journey to Te Rerenga Wairua to deliver his message to a part of Te Rerenga Wairua referred to as Nga Atua Peruperu. As he was walking he concluded that he should construct a temple as a reminder to my Maori people that the foreshore was a treasured piece gifted from the unseen place. So to endorse the spirituality of our speeches we must never allow this matter to be a divisive instrument amongst us between people Pakeha and Maori.  
Further to that it is right that we within the Labour Party reveal that there is other related business as well that we were not able to complete while in Government. That is a reason that Dr Cullen referred to when he expressed his views. There were other provisions where Labour erred when this legislation was passed.  
Something else for us to bear in mind relates to the time when the march came to be and the thousands upon thousands marched the length and breadth of the country. It was not for this bill alone that the Maori people marched. No. They also wanted to take Don Brash on in their large numbers in regards to his disparaging remarks about the Maori people. But because we politicians did not know at that time how to settle this issue or matter to ensure that a spirit of divisiveness did not pervade through the public it was not completed properly.  
So greetings to us all. 
] 
We support the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill going to the Maori Affairs Committee. I have said in Maori that a great deal flowed from this hair-raising episode called the takutai moana. I recall the day the then Maori Fisheries Commission began to fund the litigation that led to a decision by the Court of Appeal that took most of us me included by utter surprise. It would be correct to say the Maori Fisheries Commission thought we were securing an economic advantage for Maori in the marine-farming industry. Once commissioner John Mitchell brought the issue to the attention of the commission which was then chaired by Sir Tipene O’Regan significant amounts of money flowed; Joe Williams before he became a jurist was the litigator and it wended its way through the various highways and byways of the legal system. 
In many respects it should have gone to the Privy Council. It could not go to the Privy Council I suppose—not that I was a member of Parliament at the time—because the agenda at that point in our recent constitutional history was to get rid of the Privy Council and I was a significant supporter. 
David Garrett 
: Bad move. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Mr Garrett ought not to say that; he may one day need the services of such a court of great distinction. 
Let me come back to what we thought we were doing. The Court of Appeal decision created a Maori political movement built upon the rhetoric and the aspirations of our matuas reflected indeed in Matiu Rata and others. As a consequence of our party making a call in the face of considerable adversity the Maori Party sprang into existence and it now holds a great deal of power and influence. No one in that Cabinet or on that fisheries commission ever thought that as a consequence of funding litigation to get Maoris into aquaculture they would end up in the Court of Appeal and we would have a notionally independent Maori political party steering the affairs of this House. That was the furthest thing from our minds. 
It needs to be said that we need to move on from this issue. I can thoroughly understand the concerns of my whanaunga Hone Harawira on this issue; after all it was our matuas in the late 1950s who took the Ninety Mile Beach litigation. They took it to the point where they had exhausted what meagre resources they could amass but it floundered at the high levels of the judicial system at the time. So it has always been a live issue for those particular iwi. I think of those matuas of ours the Rev Mutu Kapa Waata Tepania and Joe Conrad people whom I saw in my youth who had a very very profound view that the territory right out to the horizon ought to fall under the rangatiratanga of the tangata whenua of that area. So I can understand why it is difficult for him to agree to this bill because it does not seriously change much at all in terms of what Dr Cullen ended up with save for one constitutional imperative: it restores the right of Maori citizens whether through hapu whanau or iwi to go and have their day in court. 
I hope that those who do have a sustainable claim take the route of negotiation because the days of the ability to secure a significant concession from the court system on this issue have come and gone. As for the radicalism in my view reflected initially by Lord Cooke and followed on slightly by Sian Elias we do not have a court system like that any longer which is part of the reason why I always supported the dissolution of our connection with the Privy Council—but that is another matter. So I support the route of negotiation. I say that because at the end of the day it reflects what people are prepared to live with. If we push the envelope too far it will not be sustainable. If it is too weak Maori will continue to feel aggrieved. If it is outrageous it will feed the rhetoric from the ACT Party. This measure does create the opportunity for a negotiated outcome but let no Maori group exaggerate or be sucked in by its lawyers to thinking this is an El Dorado. 
The legal tests and the threshold in this legislation mean there will be precious few if any full customary title awards made. This bill does not take account of the hapu and iwi who lost their land contiguous to seabed and foreshore. It does not take account of the fact that colonialism means they no longer are able to fulfil the test of contiguity. Only through the medium of politics and clever negotiations can that come to pass. 
Labour members support this bill but it has been a hair-raising experience and in many senses it is a cheerless end to an inordinately exciting and saddening episode. It brings into law that which largely was always there. The saving grace is that the negotiations process may provide an opportunity for the Maori claimants to secure what they are after. But do not for a moment think that by restoring access to the court we have simplified or lowered the threshold—the test—that enables Maori political rhetoric to be fulfilled because the legal test will be arid dry and extremely difficult to overcome. But that is the bill that lies before us today. It is not inordinately different from what Sian Elias said and I only hope that the organisations that represent tangata whenua on this issue do not entertain ridiculous ideas as to whether there is an El Dorado here. A negotiations process is available but the legal process will be very expensive and at the end of the day the result will be inversely related to the expectation. Kia ora tatou katoa.