Horomia Parekura: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee 
Horomia Parekura: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17399] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 Kia ora. E mihi kau ana ki te Minita kei te tae tata atu tatou ki te otinga o te ture nei. Na te mea i roto i aku e taumahatia atu te mahi penei tonu engari e pai ana kei te tae tata atu ki a tatou. 
[ 
Thank you. I congratulate the Minister as the completion of this bill draws near. I understand that this work is strenuous but it us heartening that we are reaching the end 
.] 
I will pick up on a couple of points in Part 4—firstly the recognition of protected customary rights. Having listened to the summary of the Minister in the chair the Attorney-General I will make a few points and I hope that he takes note. Clause 92 “Recognition of protected customary rights and customary marine title” states: “(1) A protected customary right or customary marine title relating to a specified part of the common marine and coastal area may be recognised by—(a) an agreement … or (b) an order of the Court …”. I think that one of the things we should say up front now concerns the cost in relation to that. I hope that we do not get into a continued litigious barrage where people just carry on sucking the pocket of the State or worse still cost iwi and hapu outrageous sums of money for nought. So I hope for that in the sense of this agreement. 
In the Minister’s summary of issues relevant to the court it was interesting to listen to his appraisal of why applications for a recognition order should go to the High Court. I think that in relation to what Mr Harawira said it is quite right that we must be careful to ensure—and I was trying to say this in a different way yesterday—that the tikanga and tuku iho aspects need special expertise. I hope that the Minister will see it right and gather around him able advisers or people who can ensure they have an understanding of tuku iho and aspects of tikanga that are relevant to Maori that they have inherited over generations not just through their genealogical ties but also through living tikanga and tuku iho through practising it and minding it. I hope the Minister will ensure that we have people who can decipher those aspects and make sure they do not get put asunder by over-endowed legalese even though that is what creates legislation in this country. But there is a place for understanding— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I wouldn’t call the Minister over-endowed. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: —the great Minister—and I hope that he makes sure of that. This is the serious part where Maoridom would really struggle with any attempt to realign aspects of tikanga and tuku iho. It is a serious part; it is a very very serious part. This issue was relevant to the usage of the Maori Appellate Court and the Maori Land Court because it has been their everyday business. They are practised in it. It is like the Environment Court and the Family Court; they are practised in it. They understand the fundamentals and they understand the nuances that drive their activity. So I say kia ora to the Minister. 
When we get down to clause 95 “Registration and notification of agreement” we see that in subclause (2)(c) a copy of the agreement has to be sent to “(i) the local authorities … (ii) the Minister of Conservation; and (iii) the Minister of Fisheries; and (iv) the Minister of Maori Affairs; and (v) any other person”—and Joe Bloggs—“who the chief executive considers is directly affected by the agreement.” That is quite interesting. I ask the Minister—hopefully—how he will ensure true partnership and cooperation between all of those agencies and how he will ensure that the cooperation aligns with the real needs of iwi and whanau. I place that question with him. We know well enough about the internal differences that can happen in agencies I tell the Minister. I hope there is some template or guidance to ensure that the situation does not end up like what I saw in my time in relation to agencies coming together where it was all about their key performance indicators and outcomes. Those are right but at the end of the day the last thing on the agencies’ radar is ensuring surety and positive development that will benefit Maori. 
Under clause 101 “Service of application” I was wondering to put it quite crudely whether there was financial assistance in this area because a lot of this talk behoves the fact that there is a cost. I think the worst thing would be to punish iwi and hapu or to distance them from the opportunity because they have no putea. I need to be as crude as that I tell the Minister; I hope that that need is taken account of and that we do recognise that. Local authorities can put up our rates and get a bit more take but I ask the Minister whether there is financial assistance. It is all too easy in preparing new legislation to forget that and to say: “We will do this and we will do that; now you Maoris go and apply. You register you do whatever else and you build up your plans but just carry on run a raffle and whatever else and raise the finance.” It is as crude as that; I hope that a very clear direction is sought by the Minister. 
With regard to clause 105 “Burden of proof”—and this is an interesting one I tell the Minister; I have heard him wax lyrical on this two or three times in other situations—quite certainly in this case it has to be about the iwi proving what they are claiming. That is reasonably straightforward. But as the Minister said it is up to the Crown to disprove that to put spokes in the wheel and try to distort it—not necessarily to undermine it—or to prove it is not as iwi claim. Again apart from financial assistance I think that a fair bit of expert help may be needed there. It is quite easy for people to get up and make a claim because they know things through tradition and whatever else but at the end of the day I tell the Minister I hope that he recognises the need for financial assistance. 
In clause 119 “Regulations for management of common marine and coastal area” there is mention of the Governor-General. There will be a great new Governor-General. I mihi to the present Governor-General who is a great man and to this new bloke this new tangata whenua who will be wonderful wonderful. It is great that he will have the duty and role to instigate parts of this legislation. This clause certainly is about the Governor-General acting by Order in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Conservation—again it is about partnerships. I ask how the partnerships are defined and ensured so that Maori will get a fair go. The member Tau Henare over there mortally wounded us yesterday by abusing us and you know it is really hard to take that sort of thing. We get it from Pakehas we get it from the media but to get it from our own kin like Tau Henare is very very upsetting and undermining. I think it is outlandish. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What’s that e Ropu Reipa? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Te Ropu Nahinara—Pirimia Key—said: “National will look to abolish the Maori seats.” and also said: “If the Government does not legislate to protect ownership of the foreshore for all New Zealanders then we will put forward our own bill.” There is something very mysterious there. I mihi to the member for Te Tai Tonga in that other party because if he abolished the Maori seats—and the difference in the vote here is about three or four seats—this bill would not go through. At this late time I challenge and plead with Maori Party members to change their vote because National said in July 2003 that it would get rid of the Maori seats. National is waiting for Maori Party members to sanction this bill and get it through and then it will get rid of their seats. Look it is not too late—seriously it is not too late. Those members should turn away because that is what he said— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What does the agreement say? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: What does the agreement say? In 2004 Dr Brash who was the best friend of Mr Tau Henare—who used to stand by him on those “Iwi/Kiwi” placards and all that stuff; he used to rap it up— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Kotahitanga! 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That is it—Brash and “Trash”. They used to stand on the beach yell out and insult Maori. Dr Brash said: “We believe that there should be one law for all that we are all New Zealanders with the same rights and obligations under the law. New Zealanders do not want to have separate titles and development rights for our beaches according to race.” Then Gerry Brownlee chastised us. It was Gerry Brownlee who is doing a reasonable job in Christchurch who said: “We do not favour a process that would give Maori a greater say than non-Maori in the management of these significant resources.” National has made its position on this clear right from the start. “We believe our beaches and our lakes should belong to me.”—that is what Gerry said. 
I plead with the Maori Party to understand what National said in 2003. National said that it would get rid of the Maori seats so I am not too sure why Maori Party members are making the difference in passing this legislation or why they are chastising the public and boasting that it is their bill.