Mapp Wayne: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15634] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 We are now dealing with Part 7 “Amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993”. This part is essentially all about bringing into play the Maori Land Court and the point has already been well made that this court is already burdened down with conflict and beset with problems. Even the Government has some serious questions about the personnel of the court. So here it is loading it up with even more tasks to resolve. At one stage this court had quite a narrow focus. It dealt solely with issues amongst landowners. Dover Samuels who is a man well noted for not taking any calls in the House would know all about the role of the Maori Land Court in that regard. But over time we have seen creeping jurisdiction. 
This legislation provides for the court to deal with all sorts of mandating disputes—major boundary disputes; which iwi owns what. It is no longer just an issue of individuals owning particular parts of land; rather it is an issue of deciding tribal boundaries and going even further deciding which iwi can back out of the legislation. That is contained in the clauses inserted after clause 14 by the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee. 
It will be the court I predict that will actually have to work out whether Ngati Hine and Rongomaiwahine are able to back out of their existing iwi and become iwi themselves. Members should think about that. The people themselves say they are an iwi. On the face of it that seems a reasonable proposition. Who ultimately gets to decide? It is not the people themselves but a court. So potentially—and this must seem truly absurd if one analyses it—a court will decide whether a people is a people. We are now passing law in this country where it is left to courts to decide the identity of a people. It is the sort of precedent we are seeing in other legislation. I know I am not supposed to talk about other legislation but I will mention with brevity the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. The problem is the same there as well. I suggest that all of this is frankly asking courts to do more than they are equipped to do. If Parliament really believes that Ngati Hine and Rongomaiwahine are iwi then it should say so. We are the representatives of the people. Even Mr Samuels the man who never speaks in the House represents some people. One would think that his people would bring their kaupapa to the House and say: “Mr Samuels speak on our behalf.” He should rise so that we can hear his voice speaking on behalf of his people. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Leave it to the Maori Party. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: He is going to leave it to the Maori Party I understand. It will be the voice of the people it seems. But I come back to the serious point whereby we are asking courts to make extraordinary determinations—not just about disputes between owners which is the sort of thing courts are set up to do but actually about the identity of a people. I ask the Government whether it has thought that one through. I ask the Labour members on the select committee who took a pioneering role in relation to advocating the case of Ngati Hine and Rongomaiwahine whether they thought it through. Did they really intend that a court should have the ultimate determination as to the identity of a people? That is not my understanding of rangatiratanga. Surely the very essence of that term means that people decide their own identity. Instead we have the whole idea debased and devalued by allowing an unelected—I was going to say unaccountable but I guess the appeal would go ultimately to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.