Mahuta Nanaia: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mahuta Nanaia: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16999] 
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 I want to speak on Part 1 and to highlight a couple of clauses that I believe provide some clarification in terms of the intention of Supplementary Order Paper 302. 
There has been a lot of talk today about the objects clause clause 2A. Implicit in that clause is the fiduciary obligation of the Crown to look after the foreshore and seabed for all New Zealanders after it having first recognised that it has a role to protect the association of whanau hapu and iwi with the public foreshore and seabed. That implicit obligation will in time help to develop the thinking and the context of how the common law has been provided for in this bill. It is a good clause and a good addition in the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper. 
The member before me made a couple of comments on the purposes clause. It sets out quite clearly the intention of the bill. Rightly or wrongly—whatever people may think about the content of the rest of the bill—the purposes clause gives a very good description of what is provided for in the legislation. I will highlight clause 3(c) which enables “applications to be made to the High Court to investigate the full extent of the rights that may have been held at common law and if those rights are not able to be fully expressed as a result of this Act enabling a successful applicant group—(i) to participate in the administration of a foreshore and seabed reserve; or (ii) to enter into formal discussions on redress;”. I think that sets out very clearly that there are provisions within the bill that enable the full extent to be explored. 
There were some issues raised within the debate about whether the common law rights applied to all New Zealanders. My friends in the Opposition will know that in the interpretation clause the devil is in the detail. The definition of “applicant group” could apply to anybody. Anyone who can pass the threshold test that is provided for later on in the bill has the opportunity to go to the High Court to find out whether he or she has a territorial customary right. So it is not race-specific as members in the Opposition would have people believe; the way in which “applicant group” has been defined in the interpretation clause opens it up. 
There are other points about Part 1 that I would like to comment on—notably what is not there and that is ancestral connection. All members will recognise that ancestral connection has been removed from Part 1 because a lot of submissions as I understand it had asked what it achieved. In effect because of the way in which the ancestral connection has been provided for throughout the rest of the bill it is a given that Maori have a very strong association with the takutai moana. Implicitly within the other parts of the bill the ancestral connection becomes very relevant and is a given. That is a credit to some progressive thinking on both sides of the House about the nature of the relationship of Maori to the takutai moana. 
There were also comments and I think they were quite wide ranging about whether a marine reserve would be affected—whether a mataitai would be prohibited by this bill. Well if the test is passed in the High Court and a takutai moana reserve or foreshore and seabed reserve is created then it is up to the management committee to determine that. Through its management plan it may determine whether it wants a mataitai within a marine reserve—it is up to it. Under the laws of this land which apply to all citizens of New Zealand it will follow the due process of law to lodge a marine reserve application. It is all up to it. I think that shows the depth of thinking that has gone into the possibilities that can be created within this bill that also uphold some of the interests that Maori have promoted in this area. 
In times to come there will be some extensive thinking about what another part of this bill means. I am happy to see that the recognition of kaitiakitanga is the same as that referred to in the Resource Management Act. Why? Because it is consistent it is something that people already have an understanding of and it is not departing from some of the principles of resource management that we are all concerned about. 
There has been a mishmash of understanding about what is not protected. I want to say in my contribution that the existing private property rights of all New Zealanders will be protected. The definition of “specified freehold interest” applies to all New Zealanders including Maori.