General Debate: Rahui Katene, MP for Te Tai Tonga
Wednesday 1 July 2009; 5.30pm

The Foreshore and Seabed issue started in Te Tau Ihu when one iwi, Ngati Apa, sought a mussel-farming licence.

Their humble request to farm in their traditional rohe was rejected by the Marlborough District Council, and so Ngati Apa went to Court.

Just over six years ago the Court of Appeal, in the pivotal case, Attorney General v Ngati Apa, ruled that the Crown was wrong to contend that certain statutes affecting the foreshore and seabed had had the effect of extinguishing such Maori customary title as might exist.

And they went further, ruling that the Maori Land Court had the jurisdiction, under Te Ture Whenua Maori, to determine whether any part of the foreshore and seabed is still Maori customary land.

Within days, all hell broke loose, and so began the long and agonising journey that resulted in the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004.

Today that journey has taken on a bold new pathway ahead.

Just over an hour ago, the Ministerial Review Panel’s report of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 stated clearly, that the Act was simply wrong in principle and approach; the timing and the process were also wrong.

It was not just wrong. It was also discriminatory.

Edward Ellison, on behalf of Te Runanga o Otakau described the Act as a “knee jerk reaction” which was also “an opportunity to secure the right to license, sell, farm off”.

The issue which started from such small beginnings, was never, as Moana Jackson said, “a sterile debate about rights or politics”; this issue “goes to the essence of our integrity and our place as tangata whenua”.

So today is a day to make right the wrongs that have stung at the very heart of Maori and non-Maori.

It is a day in which the nation knows, the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 will be repealed.

But it is also a day for new beginnings.

The Ministerial Panel sets out the pathway to nationhood based on kotahitanga. The foundation for our future lies in taking an approach based on Te Tiriti o Waitangi, a Treaty which was to provide for two peoples of the land.

The Panel cut through the myths and fears that surrounded the debate of 2004, and suggested that it was time to expect that both cultural views should be recognised in law, and reconciled.

To stimulate the conversation, the panel proposed a new Act based on the Treaty principle of providing for both Maori and Pakeha world views.

It seems so easy. The panel recommends that the key lies in the recognition that hapu and iwi, and the general public, both have interests in the coastal marine area, that both interests must be respected and provided for.

The Maori Party welcomes this report as clearly marking a line in the sand between the days of conflict and division, and the pathway ahead.

It is a pathway which New Zealanders want. 85% of those who commented on what should happen to the Act, favoured repeal; that is including those hapu and iwi who are already in negotiations.

A mere five percent of submitters wanted to see the Act remain unchanged.

From my electorate, the Christchurch City Council put in words, what the future could look like, when they suggested

“if there were informed and considered discussions between Maori and Pakeha then consensus would be feasible. What is important is finding the right solution for all New Zealanders, not a hasty solution as was the case in 2004”.

This report does not put forward a quick fix, a hasty solution.

It suggests instead, the need for a longer conversation, a conversation stimulated by their report as a catalyst for further discussion.

And there is much to discuss – the set of core principles, what should comprise the interim Act; the Treaty framework; the proposal for national settlement; the regional iwi proposal.

There is debate to be had about customary usage; customary authority and ownership of the foreshore and seabed.

The Maori Party welcomes the debate with enormous energy for finally setting things right and restoring justice to Aotearoa.

ENDS

© Scoop Media