Ririnui Mita: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Ririnui Mita: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17192] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) 
: 
 I find it very interesting that different members of the Maori Party have different versions of the history of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. I have to congratulate my colleague the Hon David Parker— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: That’s not what you called him last week. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: —on his speech to the Committee this afternoon. 
We are talking about the preamble to the bill in terms of its history but in doing that we have to be mindful of matters that were raised throughout the select committee process but are not actually covered in the preamble. I heard the interjection from the Hon Tau Henare and I wonder at what point he will take a call and explain to the Committee what instructions he had to drive this legislation through the Maori Affairs Committee and to not take into account the views of the submitters. I was part of the process as I was part of the process in 2003 and 2004 and I have to say that it was an absolute shambles. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Just like you. You did nothing as well. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: I am actually disgusted with the interjections I am hearing from the member across the Chamber in terms of his understanding of the process. If he thinks it was a transparent and open process he should go back and read the select committee’s report. A lot of the issues raised by the submitters were not actually included in the report. That was because that member went out of his way to shut down any open debate on certain matters. But I am sure he was acting under orders so I will leave that matter as it rests. 
We heard some valuable contributions this afternoon for and against this bill but it is important that we take into account what the common people were saying about it. They were not interested in the high-flying legal arguments around the customary rights issue. I remind the member from the South Island that any codification of customary rights as this bill is attempting to do is actually an extinguishment of those customary rights. Get it clear—the member is a lawyer I hear. 
When we talk to people on the street the first question they ask is what the bill will deliver in terms of recognition of the customary rights that they have enjoyed since 1840. I have to say that there is a lot of uncertainty around that. There is a lot of uncertainty around it because a lot of the areas that the Government claims this bill covers are customary rights that they enjoy already. I am quite offended when I hear the member Rahui Katene refer to the collection of shellfish and the manaakitanga that Maori have for other people. Those principles have never been compromised at any time in my recollection apart from the 1991 amendment to the Fisheries Act. So if she wants to talk about the history of this bill I tell her to go back and look at when customary rights in terms of shellfish collection or fisheries were actually extinguished. They were extinguished back then. But that was to our benefit because the codification of our customary rights in terms of kai moana was very very clear in that we still have in place certain rights that allow us to practise manaakitanga. 
Another thing that annoys me is the way we put up arguments and put the issues before our people. Our people think they will look out the window one day and the takutai moana will be gone. I will give members an example. I visited a group on the weekend at Maketu and the issue around this particular bill came up. A certain person out of genuine concern got to her feet and asked me what was happening about the takutai moana and our kai moana. I told her we were standing on the takutai moana and that it was still here and still ours and I said we had just had lunch and we had kai moana on the table. I asked what her issue actually was. Her concern was that there was a lot of hype and emotion around this bill as there was in 2003 and 2004. The concerns raised amongst Maori people were that those rights in terms of customary practices would be extinguished for ever. That is not the case. That was not the case in 2003 and 2004 and it is not the case now. 
I make the accusation here in the Chamber that the problem in 2003 and 2004 was that certain people in this House raised expectations about what they could deliver if they formed the Maori Party. They raised expectations about what was possible in terms of taking their issues to the High Court. They raised expectations in terms of what enjoyment they would have in the future in respect of customary practices. In other words a lot of hypocrisy and misinformation was being flaunted out there amongst Maori people. That misinformation is still out there and those people expect the Maori Party to deliver to them customary rights and customary title. 
Those members forgot to cover the complications Maori will face in the High Court. My colleague David Parker said earlier on that the benchmark is very high in terms of qualifying for the recognition of customary rights under this bill. That may be all very well for the legal fraternity because let us face it they will be involved with litigation for some time to come and they will be handling applications on behalf of many iwi around the country. 
Members are not saying to those iwi that once we get this bill through the issue is not over. It will never be over; it is just beginning. There are difficulties for iwi who apply for customary title over the takutai moana: they will have to meet the legal costs and they will have to provide strong evidence about those interests. Maori have never ever had to do that—ever. Since 1840 and pre-1840 they have never had to do that. I want the members to think about that and the sort of situation created for Maori in terms of arguing their case before the High Court. It has never ever had to be done in the past. 
The previous Labour Government gave Maori the opportunity to enter into direct negotiations to clarify the nature and extent of their customary rights on the foreshore and seabed and many of them have taken up the offer. That opportunity has been removed. Neither can Maori go to the Maori Land Court to have a settlement. The Maori Land Court is probably the best court in the land to consider these types of applications for customary interests because their people are more intricately involved with Maori on a day-to-day basis; a lot of them are community-based people themselves. 
It is a shame that we did not have a lot of debate around this particular issue. I concur with my colleagues that the select committee process was rushed. We made that known at the time but there seemed to be little consideration for a longer debate. The Maori Party will have to explain that to our people in the future. 
An interesting submission was presented in Tauranga that stated that the select committee process provided the opportunity for us to have a longer debate. Little did the submitter know that it was the opportunity for the Government to shut down the debate. Once this bill came into the House and started to go through the second reading process that was the end of it. There is no debate after that. That is why the Hon Tau Henare acted on instruction because the Government wanted to shut down the debate for ever. There is no ongoing debate for Maori in terms of the legal requirements around their customary interests or the nature and extent of their customary interests. Thank you.