Worth Richard: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Worth Richard: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17096] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
:  
This legislation must surely be politically correct madness. Part 4 is all about that. I guess it is a pathway one might unkindly say for “white honkies”. I listened to what the honourable John Tamihere said when he seriously suggested that different ethnic groups may take advantage of Part 4 and I thought he must be dreaming. We did not have Chinese settlement in New Zealand until 1860. The only possible ethnic groups that may be considered as coming under this umbrella are Maori and I guess we would say European or Caucasian interests. It seems to me that this debate is rapidly developing into a farce. It is a farce created by the Government driven by political correctness and an apparent desire for all New Zealanders to be seen to be equal when the reality of that desire is wholly illusory.  
What is implicit in Part 4 is that a concurrent jurisdiction is given to the High Court to make customary rights orders under Part 4 and that is underscored by provisions in the part. It is a jurisdiction that is shared with the Maori Land Court. Under Part 3 it is quite clear by dint of clause 60 that the Maori Land Court is to have primacy in determining issues of customary rights. I just note that there are subtle wording differences between Part 3 and Part 4. That will in the result doubtless cause confusion and assertions of injustice and inequality of treatment. That could all have been avoided. Did the Government seek to do that? No! Why not? Maybe it was pressure of time; maybe it was just simple ineptitude.  
I would like to draw two points to members’ attention before I make the substantive point that I seek to make. The first concerns clause 62(1). Under the heading “Effects of customary rights order” that clause makes the point that a customary rights order may entitle a group on whose behalf the order is made to derive a commercial benefit from carrying out a recognised customary activity. It was never intended in the context of the common law that customary rights should be exploited for commercial gain. The same provision occurs of course in Part 3. It shows a misunderstanding of what the whole concept of customary rights was about is about and will be about. The second point I note is that in a fit of generosity or perhaps foolishness under clause 58 we all have until 31 December 2015—yes 10 years—to make application to the High Court for one of those orders.  
I have said that there is an air of unreality about this part. In fact there is an air of unreality about the bill. It overlooks the simple fact that in the New Zealand community today Maori and non-Maori have substantially intermingled. The legislation assumes that Maori tribal groupings are substantially untouched by civilisation. It is a throwback to the idea of the “noble savage”—the romantic iwi groupings on the coast and the idea of flesh pots and cooking pots. That is absolutely ridiculous because Maori and non-Maori have moved on from that. Let us just say we have a New Zealand community. [ 
Interruption 
] I would just like to say to the members who are shouting across the Chamber the stupid comments that they are so inclined make that it is appropriate in the context of this bill—if for just a moment they would listen—to reflect on the whole issue of what it means to be a Maori in 2004 and what it means to be a non-Maori. Mr Maharey even with the flights of imagination that he is given to could not cross that intellectual gap but some members may be able to.