Jones Dail: Foreshore and Seabed Bill Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Jones Dail: Foreshore and Seabed Bill Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:621;Page:17204] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Perhaps I should start by referring to the last comment of the previous speaker the National Party member for North Shore which reflects on the content of that speech. He referred to Supplementary Order Paper 306 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen as having a raft of other measures on it. It does not.  
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Three issues. 
DAIL JONES 
: I have it here. It has two measures on it. The first is the commencement date which is neither here nor there and the second is the Bayswater Marina - North Shore matter. The amendment to clause 117 of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill amends section 24 of the Conservation Act as set out in schedule 3 of that Act. The member for North Shore has distorted the truth in this House. There were only two issues on that Supplementary Order Paper and it is very clear that the member for North Shore voted against the interests of the residents of his electorate on that particular issue. He is trying to backpedal now. I have voted in this House against the party I belonged to before today. I have crossed the floor on an issue that was important. The National member for North Shore was not prepared to do that in the interests of his electorate and its people. He is now trying to come up with some flimsy excuse for not doing that.  
It is a privilege to be a member of Parliament and especially a New Zealand First member of Parliament because New Zealand First has shown leadership on this issue to all the other Opposition parties. Obviously we have the only leader of the Opposition in this House in the Rt Hon Winston Peters. This has been very interesting legislation. When I was put on the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee everyone said to me that I would be working terribly hard and that it would be a difficult job. But then my alternative on the Justice and Electoral Committee would have been the Civil Union Bill. I am really delighted to have worked on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill instead of that bill; it has been a real pleasure to do so in comparison with the Civil Union Bill. I wish the members on the Justice and Electoral Committee very well.  
There has been a lot of talk about racism and one law for all and this legislation has been described as racist and suchlike. Let us examine where we came from in the NgatiApa case. The New Zealand Court of Appeal in determining that case applied English common law which applies to New Zealand. It is one law for all; English common law is applicable to everybody. The Court of Appeal in that case stated that Maori people in New Zealand had customary rights. Based on what the National Party member has just said the Court of Appeal must have been racist to suggest that one race had customary rights and the other race did not have any such rights. That is the clear inference of the National Party and other Opposition parties to the House on this legislation.  
New Zealand First and the Labour Party believing in one law for all applied the English common law as set out in the Court of Appeal decision and have given effect to it. New Zealand First made it very clear at the very outset on 25 June 2003 that it would support any move to ensure that the Crown had legal title to the foreshore and seabed. That is what this legislation does. We said again that Maori traditional rights of use must be protected but that those rights could not be extended to property ownership on the basis of race. This legislation protects those rights based on the decision in the NgatiApa case on the common law protecting Maori customary rights. That was our policy and we have carried it out. We also said that all Governments must be fair and neutral on matters of race and that is really the genesis of Part 4 of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. We will wait and see in the fullness of time just how effective it is. I believe that it will throw up quite a few surprises for people who have been laughing at it at the present time.  
At no time did the Court of Appeal state that the Crown no longer owns the foreshore and seabed. This legislation has carried out New Zealand First’s policy and has ensured that the public foreshore and seabed is vested in the Crown that rights of access and rights of navigation to the public are protected and that individual fishing rights are protected. That is apart from the Treaty of Waitangi settlements; I am referring to clause 7A of the bill. If someone who is on the side of a wharf wants to throw a line over it or if someone who is on the beach wants to throw a line into the sea that person can continue to do so as usual. There was some doubt about it. We heard the submissions and we put a special clause into the bill clause 7A in order to make that clear.  
In keeping with the Court of Appeal decision and with our view customary rights orders for whanau hapu and iwi based on occupation from 1840 in a substantially uninterrupted way will be available for customary use in the Maori Land Court. The year 1840 is important because Professor McHugh who lectured us at the select committee made it very clear that we had to have a date set out. There was a choice between the Canadian system which would have taken the date much further back or the Australian system in which the date of sovereignty would be 1840—the year in which the Treaty of Waitangi was signed in New Zealand. That date was set and that is the reason why it is there. Of course the Court of Appeal also discussed what are now called territorial customary rights. It has set a very high standard when we look at what Professor McHugh had to say. An extraordinarily high standard is required and that is why the Court of Appeal stated in its decision that very few cases would be successful in obtaining that type of right. The Court of Appeal gave an example of a few rocky places out at sea that may be successful in that respect.  
Some people might have said that because the issue was going to be very difficult they would ignore it altogether. But New Zealand First wanted to enforce the common law. We have codified the common law in this legislation. I must say that the officials who worked on this legislation—the parliamentary counsel the members of the staff of the Government departments and suchlike and our adviser—were of the highest calibre that I have ever seen in my parliamentary career and this is my fourth term in Parliament as some members know. I must congratulate them; they were absolutely excellent. They were asked some of the most impossible questions and they came up with the answers straight away. It was a classic example of how nowadays in New Zealand we have very well-trained people—and dare I say it they are all getting younger and brighter. It is really remarkable. It is a great credit to this country and to its future that we have people of that calibre in New Zealand. They helped me immensely during the course of the select committee deliberations.  
As I have said we also ensured that there were territorial customary rights and that it was a very strict test. It seems to me as a lawyer that if we give people a very difficult hurdle like having to climb 1½ Mount Everests and if they climb without oxygen by the time they succeed they ought to get something at the end of the day. Originally the legislation was vague on that issue and I discussed that with the other members of the select committee. We heard the submissions—we heard from about 1000 people altogether. This legislation is full of answers to the questions raised by submitters up and down the country. We listened to them and that is why there are so many amendments to the bill. The National Party and other parties have criticised the number of amendments. There are amendments to the bill because we listened to the people of New Zealand who came before the select committee. It would take me at least an hour to go through all the submissions and answer all the questions that were raised. so I just say that in passing. Of course our staff had to work on the amendments in a way that would make sense. At the end of the day someone who wins a case ought to get something and the provisions for foreshore and seabed reserve and guardianship express the view of the committee. And of course there can be discussions with the Minister.  
The issue of the foreshore and seabed is very simple. The Court of Appeal made a decision. It set out the common law rights. Parliament took them up. We have made sure that the foreshore and seabed belong to the Crown because that was always the law. The legislation has included customary rights orders for Maori groups. It has a territorial customary right order which is a very very heavy test to pass. Of course there is Part 4 of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill that has ensured one law for all. There has been a lot of huff and puff around the whole issue. It is unfortunate that for a while there was a public domain issue. Mr Dunne made a very good point about how people should have got together and discussed the issue. He mentioned the Labour Party dealing with the National Party. But the National Party was not willing to talk so the Labour Party came to see New Zealand First as the next-largest party in this House. We had set out our view earlier and we have maintained that view throughout. We said what we meant in June 2003 and we persisted with it. It is the correct view. There was a problem. We analysed the case and came up with a solution. Could we fix it? Yes we could—and we did.