United Future
Hon Peter Dunne

Dunne speech 1st reading of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill

UNEDITED COPY SUBJECT TO CORRECTION

 It is a great failure of leadership on behalf of the two major parties that we are in this situation today. But we were not able to get to a point as we did with the treaty settlements in the 1990s, where a bipartisan approach was able to be achieved, a lot of the division, bitterness, uncertainty, and rancour that has divided this country in recent times was avoided, and we were able to make progress on both sides of the argument with a sense of pride and satisfaction in what had been achieved. I spoke with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition separately and urged them to work together to see if such an approach could occur on this occasion. I think it is to New Zealand’s shame and disappointment that that was not able to happen, because if it were the case, we would not be in the position we are in right now where—whatever the outcome of this legislation on this vote or any other vote during its time before this House—essentially, we have a country that is polarised and divided, and will take time to heal. One of the important issues that arises from the whole chain of events that began with the Court of Appeal ruling last year, is the need to reassert some certainty about what all our reasonable expectations are. At the time of the Court of Appeal ruling, it was the general view of New Zealanders—Mâori, Pâkehâ, and other—that the foreshore and seabed were the collective property of us all, but each of us had an indistinguishable, but inalienable, right to its use and enjoyment, and what we wanted to see put in place was a regime that protected that historical understanding. It was in that context that United Future began discussing with the Labour-led Government as early as July or August last year processes by which a settlement could be arrived at that would give that signal of assurance and allow us to progress as a nation. I believe that the principles announced in the December package were correct, valid, and provided a way forward. There was some further simplification required, and that occurred over the intervening couple of months. But one of the things that became important right throughout to us—and in the end became the point at which we parted company on—was that to ensure ultimately that all New Zealanders had that right of access, ownership, and enjoyment they all felt they were historically entitled to. The concept of the foreshore and seabed as public domain had to be acknowledged. Now, this is not some new, republican fad. It draws on English common law, going back to the time of the Magna Carta, which was hardly a republican document. What it recognises is that as a nation, we have something in common. It also recognises that the Crown acts as the public’s agent. As an entity, the Crown is there to govern on behalf of the people it serves. When the phrase “public domain” was removed from the legislation, that assurance was removed. We ended up with the position where the Crown ceased to be the agent of the people of New Zealand carrying out the will of the people of New Zealand, but became instead a player in its own right, with all the opportunities to dispose of the foreshore and seabed it was acting in trust for on behalf of the people, in any way it saw fit. We said that was not an acceptable position. It did not give the protection that every single one of us was seeking. It was on the basis of that position that we withdrew our support. I want to pay a special tribute to the Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. We have dealt with him in good faith throughout this process, and in return have been met with openness, integrity, honesty, and straightforwardness. I say to Dr Cullen that I was as sad as he was that in the end, our ways parted, because I know how much he invested into making the agreement that we were reaching stick. I know how upset he feels—as I do—that the inability of the Labour caucus to manage its own numbers, frankly, led us to that position. He is a man of integrity who has emerged with honour intact and enhanced as a result of this process, and I pay tribute to him. The issue that now confronts every single member in this House this afternoon, as this bill goes to a select committee, and as the people in the gallery, on the forecourt, or around the country who are listening to the debate have the opportunity to express their views, is: where to from here? Do we continue to see this in narrow, partisan, political terms, where a temporary majority will prevail more for the sake of convenience than good management, or do we take the opportunity—which I thought Dr Brash was hinting at this afternoon—to try to genuinely work towards a solution that will embrace a large number of members of this House? Because unless we do that, whatever solution we arrive at is a tainted one. The bill is passed by a narrow majority. In a way, it is the same argument about the Supreme Court: it lacks a moral mandate. It is divided, and it automatically raises the suspicion that what ought to be a mark of some permanence and some stability, can potentially be overturned by any future Government on a whim at any particular time. The previous speaker made reference to 160 years of law, and made the argument that if it has not become an issue in the last 160 years, what guarantee is there that it will become an issue in the next 160 years? I have some sympathy with that point of view. I do not have perhaps his confidence that the issue would not arise, but what I do know is that unless this Parliament speaks unequivocally and tries to come together in a sense of unity to create a purpose, then there is every prospect that the historical understandings of the last 160 years will be challenged, and with that there is every prospect of the fear that all of us have—whatever side of the argument we are on—about this country beginning to tear itself apart being realised.

 Today is a historic day, not just for those of us privileged to sit in this Chamber, or take part in this debate, but for our country. It is about our nationhood, it is about our future. Fundamentally, there is no prospect of this country going forward in that united, cohesive way that we all like to talk about, if we are unable to set petty differences aside and come to a constructive solution on major legislation like this. My challenge to the House, as this bill goes to a select committee and the debate proper begins, is that we all ought to focus on ways in which we can achieve a positive outcome, and start to leave behind those factors that have divided and embittered us for far too long, because otherwise we will not have a nation to be proud of.