Jones Shane: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Jones Shane: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17199] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 A kia ora ano tatou. Tena koe e te Kaihautu o te Whare mo tenei wahanga o a tatou whiriwhiri i tenei ahiahi. Ahakoa no te tonga noa atu koe ka nui taku hari i whakaritea kia tu ai ahau. He mohio noku me pehea te pukenga ka puta. 
[ 
Salutations once again to us. Thank you for allowing me to speak in this part of our deliberations this afternoon Mr Chairman. Although you are from the very southern part of the country I am absolutely pleased that you allowed me to stand. Mind you I know how eloquent I am 
.] 
Thank you very much Mr Chair for providing me with an opportunity to stand and make a contribution on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. Unfortunately the public thinks that the reasons we are marshalling on why we do not agree with this bill—and I will come to the preamble very soon—are consistent with what the last speaker Hilary Calvert just said. No one on this side of the Chamber believes that such an important bundle of rights traditions habits and usages as those caught up in the words tikanga Maori comes from  
Alice in Wonderland 
. That was a disgraceful description of the bicultural traditions of this Parliament and it showed why ACT after unfortunately the passage of this bill and as we get closer to 26 November will be written right out of the script. Not a single person will shed a tear when that happens to someone who could make such a provocative ill-conceived and very nasty remark about nigh on 15 percent soon to be 20 percent of the population. But that will soon pass into history. 
The preamble is a rather tight and somewhat parsimonious description of what has happened on this issue. We need to bear in mind that it was hardship that brought this issue to the attention of the former Maori Fisheries Commission which then became the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission. Having extended the preamble and given it a greater degree of heritage the Minister in the chair the Attorney-General ought to have included the pivotal role that was played by the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission which was for a short time—a mercifully short period of time—dominated by influences in the south until it was liberated by those of us in the north. What happened was that marine farming interests were dashed. They will be extinguished and they would probably be non-existent if one was to listen to the previous speaker from ACT. That was a very very jaundiced and uncharitable description of recent Maori history and New Zealand’s economic development history. 
The Court of Appeal decision was reflective of a knee-jerk reaction from a High Court judge who took a very narrow and arid approach. That in itself was a reaction against Judge Ken Hingston’s decision which was called and is known amongst the iwi as the Tau Ihu decision. That in turn was a reflection of how difficult and unwilling the people who were manning the seats in Tasman and the Tau Ihu area were to the applicants from the Maori tribes of that area towards establishing marine farming interests. 
This preamble unfortunately does not identify the fact that Labour when it passed its bill allocated in a very sensible fashion 20 percent of the marine farming interests to ensure that that portion of the grievance was addressed. Of course as befits parliamentarians such as Phil Heatley he has just carried on that very good work. The origin of that original deal goes back to Labour and I think it is very disappointing that between recitals (1) and (2) of the preamble no reference is made to those very useful interventions delivered by our side of the Chamber. 
The other thing this preamble ought to have included was reference to the ill-fated decision in the Te Oneroa-a-Tohe / Ninety Mile Beach case. [ 
Interruption 
] I am speaking about the preamble. I am endeavouring to educate the member opposite who looks like a kina and the one who behaves like a hedgehog. If they prove to be disinterested in receiving a brief history lesson let it to be to the detriment of their descendants and their families many of whom may need to go to see Ms Bennett unless they pay more attention. The Te Oneroa-a-Tohe / Ninety Mile Beach case ought to have been mentioned in the preamble because had our matua from the very far north had more resources to challenge that decision the outcome may have been substantially different. 
We do not and will not support this bill. We are more than willing to provide Hone Harawira with a suitable level of opportunity to make—[ 
Interruption 
] I apologise for mistaking a kina and a hedgehog but after that contribution I do not feel those descriptions were incorrect. I come back to the contributions that our colleague Hone Harawira has made. Unwisely he attacks Labour without giving credit for the very sensible ideas that we brought forward to address some of the interests that motivated the claimants. I just hope that he is in the Chamber to cast his vote. Whatever he does he needs to sort it out with the Green Party so that the people of Te Tai Tokerau know that although he has a loud voice he will actually cast his vote. He needs to bear in mind that the vote that will really count for him will be on 26 November and it will have a red tinge—but that is another matter. 
I come back to the contribution made by the ministerial review panel which was led by that peerless personage of Te Ao Maori otherwise known as Judge Eddie Durie. However I did not agree with the interpretations that came out from that review panel. There was one absurd section and I want it read into  
Hansard 
 in my abbreviated form because it shows that perhaps this preamble is lacking an additional bit of history. It had a photo and a ridiculous statement that it was only after the 1940s and 1950s that New Zealanders enjoyed recreating swimming cavorting and doing other things on the seabed and foreshore. That was an absolutely ridiculous statement. From the beginning of the time that families have come here to live and quite apart from our Maori tupuna people have taken for granted that that was their birthright. This bill—unfortunately it is an inescapable outcome—will lead to drama aggro and a definite prospect that people thinking they can go ahead and enjoy those interests will be challenged and drawn into drama. The report suggested that such interests in the foreshore and seabed were a very recent innovation. Although that report by Richard Boast Sir Tipene’s daughter Judge Eddie Durie and I forget whoever else was on the panel is referred to in the bill it did not advance matters to such a stage that this bill is demonstrably superior to the contribution that Dr Cullen and Helen Clark made. We will fight that issue along with the Maori Party at the next election. 
The Maori Party is entitled to say that this is its bill. It is entitled to say that this bill is its remedy etc. In one sense it needs to say that because it promised it would address the dramas associated with our contribution. But it has not described satisfactorily to our people the facts about when we have our day in court the narrow and largely unsatisfactory criteria that its people—its supporters—will have to meet. Its supporters are diminishing by the day and by the hour—not that I want to wish too much ill will towards the Maori Party because as fate would have it one or three of its members might survive and we will address that after 26 November. It is important that those people bear in mind that the threshold and the test that has been established will not satisfy their aspirations. It will lead to a set of expectations inversely related to what this bill can produce and statute ought not to do that which is why we will not be agreeing with this bill. 
The preamble contains a very sparse and uncharitable description of the role that Labour played and the more positive aspects of that role but in particular it completely avoids the very ugly divisive and quite extraordinarily angry reaction from Don Brash and a host of other National members who are now wildly passing the bill. That has been left out of it as well. A balanced history would show that prejudice and bigotry flowed from that side of the Chamber. The attempt on this side of the Chamber was to combine notions of fairness and customary rights and to bring balance. That is what we sought to do but it was a reaction to an almost fascist outburst in the speech at Orewa. It is bizarre that the Maori Party would actually want to cuddle up to the Government and to bring the bill to pass.