Goff Phil: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Goff Phil: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17182] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 The Labour Party is opposed to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. The bill does not achieve the purposes that are set out in Part 1. I recall very clearly the Prime Minister saying that he wanted to settle this issue; this bill does not settle the issue. The bill states that it provides a durable solution; this bill does not provide a durable solution. The Maori Party itself says the bill does not provide a durable solution. It says that it is simply a temporary stopgap. 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is a tight debate. It deals with the preamble. I ask you to call the Leader of the Opposition to account on this issue. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I will determine the relevancy. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The purpose clause states that the purpose of the bill is to establish a durable scheme. Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples are both on record saying that it is simply a stopgap a stopgap until they can get more. If that is all that this bill is the Minister in the chair the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations is wasting the time of this House in bringing it in. 
I remember very clearly the Prime Minister saying that if there was not broad support for the bill then he would withdraw it. Was there broad support for the bill? Four and a half thousand submissions to the Maori Affairs Committee from a cross-section of New Zealanders were overwhelmingly opposed to this legislation. They were strongly opposed to this legislation. Supporters of the National Party are strongly opposed to the bill. Supporters of the Maori Party are strongly opposed to the bill. And the reason the Maori Party has been split asunder is that its members themselves could not reach agreement on the bill. 
We should not be surprised at that when we consider the history of the bill. The bill is a response to the foreshore and seabed legislation. National members when in Opposition said that the foreshore and seabed legislation went too far and bent over backwards to give the Maori people more than they should get. National ran the campaigns of iwi versus Kiwi and dog whistling and the race-based card was played time and again. I can tell members that hundreds of letters that have been sent to the Prime Minister and copied to me from every electorate represented by the National members opposite state that the Prime Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member interjecting cannot bring the Chair into this debate. I ask the member—and all members—to remember that the Chair is not part of this debate. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The truth is National promised one thing before the election and betrayed its own supporters by not delivering what it had promised. And the Maori Party did exactly the same thing. The Maori Party said that the foreshore and seabed legislation was a disgrace and a disaster but it has ended up supporting what National has put in this legislation which most of the Maori Party’s supporters cannot differentiate from what was in the foreshore and seabed legislation. 
The reason this bill fails is that it is simply a fig leaf. It is a fig leaf for National to hide the fact that it promised one thing and delivered something totally different through the Attorney-General and it is a fig leaf for the Maori Party because it promised something that even two-thirds of its own supporters say it has failed to deliver. No wonder there is embarrassment. No wonder there is the determination to pass this legislation under the cover of the Christchurch earthquake. The National-led Government said to Parliament that this is a time to avoid bitter partisan dispute. That is what Government members said but what did they do? They brought in this legislation hoping that nobody would notice because we were all focused on the needs of the people in Christchurch. 
If that was all that National did it would have been bad enough but National went through the 4½ thousand submissions—and the department spent hours and hours of time analysing those submissions—it went back to the select committee which was chaired by Tau Henare and after hours of people giving submissions and after countless hours of the department compiling a report how long did the select committee give to the consideration of this bill? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Before we carry on—and I will give the member the call—I remind the member that we are on the preamble and I ask that from now on we stick to the preamble. That is what we are debating. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The preamble sets out the history of this legislation. This legislation was introduced and referred to the select committee in the pretence that people’s voices would be heard. It makes a farce of the democratic process for people not to have been heard and for Tau Henare to have forced this legislation through the select committee in 2 hours. The select committee had 2 hours to consider thousands of submissions and to consider a 500-page report. The chairman of the select committee might be a speed-reader but I do not believe that he— 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Following your previous ruling— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Thank you. I will determine relevancy. I ask the member to stick to the preamble. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: As the preamble sets out what the House should be trying to do is find common ground. We had division over the foreshore and seabed legislation. Everyone in this House now agrees that it was right to legislate for public access. Every party agrees on that. Every party in this House agrees that customary title is something that should not be alienated. What we are seeking to resolve is how to determine customary title. What the bill does—and the preamble sets out the history of it—from the way that it is constructed is provide that customary title can be determined not impartially and independently by the judiciary but rather by a political deal between the National Government and the Maori Party. We saw such political deals on the emissions trading scheme— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have mentioned—and I will not say it again—that we are on the preamble. The preamble is on page 7. I ask the member to come back to the preamble. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The preamble does set out the history of this legislation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I know what the preamble does thank you. The member has just talked about the emissions trading scheme. Let us focus on the preamble. It is very clear what it is. I ask the member to continue. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Minister in the chair made some very broad comments about this agreement. All that the Leader of the Opposition said was that it was effectively a dirty little deal like the emissions trading scheme. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I gave some latitude in the first 5-minute speech and I am now asking the member and other members when they come to speak to focus on the preamble. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The key issue as set out in the preamble in reference to the Ngati Apa decision is how one determines claims of customary ownership. Labour got certain things right in the Foreshore and Seabed Act. It got it right about statutory protection of public access. It got it right about non-alienation of customary titled land. We freely acknowledge that we did not get right the denial of access to the court. We stand ready in the Chamber today to work with every other party to find common ground for a durable solution to this problem if there is a will on the part of the National Government and the Maori Party to do so. I regret that there is no will. If there was a will the democratic process would not have been aborted in the way that it has been by the lack of select committee consideration of the bill. It would not have been transgressed by the refusal to give advice on what the grounds for customary title are. Why has the Attorney-General not been prepared to make available to the House the legal advice that he has received on this issue? If he made it available we could have a properly democratic and transparent process. Why has this bill been rushed back without proper select committee examination? Why is it now being rammed through under the cover of the Christchurch earthquake? 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just cite clause (2) of Standing Order 107 “Relevancy”— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Sit down. I have made clear what we are on and I will determine whether the member goes overboard. He has a minute 20 remaining 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: What we are trying to do—and as set out in the Ngati Apa decision—is to find a solution that is durable fair open and transparent. We can see that the answer in this bill does not address the dilemmas set out in the Ngati Apa decision. It does not provide for durability. It does not provide a process for transparency or democratic input. It does not settle the issue of Ngati Apa because it leaves this House and this country more bitterly divided than they were before. It does not settle the issue. John Key has reneged on his undertaking that unless there was broad support for this bill it would not go through. Every member of the National Party opposite buries their head in shame because they have received letters that have been copied to me that accuse National of a total sell-out a betrayal of its promises of being totally misleading and of not achieving something that Labour set out to achieve in addressing this bill which was to bring the country together which was to bring Parliament together and which was to consider a way of properly addressing these issues.