Foreshore and Seabed Bill

I am ashamed to be witnessing what is happening in this Parliament today.

What we are seeing is a new raupatu - a new confiscation - in this Parliament, in the year 2004.

Government members can argue about it, trying to convince themselves and the rest of the country that that is not what is going on, but this is nothing other than a confiscation of Maori property rights. I find it curious that at a time when we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to patch up injustices from the past, trying to address ongoing suffering and grievance from confiscations of the past, we are about to perpetuate the same thing in Parliament today. I am ashamed to see that.

I do not doubt that there are members on the Government side who also feel ashamed knowing what is going on. I find it curious when I hear intelligent members of the Government talking about this - people like John Tamihere who has fronted the Government campaign around this issue, saying this is not taking away rights from Maori. I fail to understand how the member can say that. I heard Russell Fairbrother, who chaired the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation committee, talking about his mokopuna last night, and I challenge him to think about the legacy he is leaving for his descendants when it comes to this bill. The legacy that he, and this Government, is leaving.

I know that this bill is passing with the support of New Zealand First. I do not doubt that some New Zealand First members also feel ashamed of what is happening today, although we would not know it, because most of them clearly are not allowed to speak on this bill, and are leaving it to only Winston Peters and Dail Jones. I debated on Marae with Winston Peters on this very issue, and I challenged his position on this
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Where?

Nandor: On the Marae programme. Maybe Mr Peters does not remember, but if he checks the video he will see it there. He tried to deny it on Maori Television, but his own website showed that the New Zealand First position was to confiscate not only foreshore and seabed, but also waterways, mountains, and forests, as well. Of course he tried to deny it on Maori television but his own web site showed it.

It is telling that New Zealand First puts Dail Jones in charge of negotiating this issue, because Dail Jones is a man who follows the Justice Prendergast interpretation of the treaty. He believes that the treaty is a nullity, so how can he be put in charge of negotiating the New Zealand First position on this bill?

The Government has ended up relying on New Zealand First because it has got itself in a very difficult position because of its knee-jerk overreaction on the finding of the Court of Appeal. It is true, as Dover Samuels has said, that there has been a lot of misinformation about what the Court of Appeal said. It did not say that Maori own all the foreshore and seabed, but that does not take away from the power of what it actually did say. It said that the Government, the Crown in general, did not own the foreshore and seabed, and that Maori could go to court to prove their customary ownership. The Court of Appeal stated that that would be difficult to prove, and it implied that there would not be that many places in the country that would be affected, but it recognised that Maori had that right. But for its political advantage the Government chose to rark up Pakeha fear about Maori closing off access to the beach. It knew that was wrong and false, but it chose to do it for political advantage.

The really interesting thing is that since the introduction of the bill, I have come across at least one example of a Maori landowner who previously, from goodwill, was totally happy to allow general access to the beach that the land adjoined but who is now closing it off because of anger and disgust at what the Government is doing with the bill. That is a shame to the House, and it shows that the Government is setting back relationships between Maori and Pakeha, and other New Zealanders, considerably by the passage of the bill.

It is not about going to the beach, or access or a beach barbecue. The areas that those kinds of things are concerned with are very unlikely to covered by a court recognition of customary ownership, in any case, because of the conditions of exclusive and uninterrupted use. It is not about Maori denying Pakeha the access to go to a beach barbecue; it is about the fact that the Government does not want Maori to have control. The bill is about putting control back into the hands of local council. It does not want Maori to have real power in relation to those issues, particularly when it comes to commercial activity. It especially does not want Maori to have any kind of veto right because it knows that one of the strongest voices for environmental protection is tangata whenua.