General Debates

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. The Government today announced its policy on the foreshore and seabed, and tomorrow it will introduce legislation that will put into effect a guarantee that all New Zealanders have a right to access the foreshore and seabed of this country of ours. That legislation will also ensure that Māori have a right to go to the Māori Land Court to pursue their rights to establish whether there is a customary use right that they have been in possession of since 1840 and are therefore, under the common law and tikanga rules, entitled to have recognised.

The legislation will also give Māori and others the right to go to the High Court to seek a declaration that will determine whether there is, in effect, a bundle of rights that would be seen as the equivalence of ownership that would have been there prior to this legislation, and that would, in fact, have entitled them to redress because that right is not there any longer. That right is not there any longer because the legislation providing public access clarifies that the foreshore and the seabed are vested in the Crown for the beneficial interests of all New Zealanders, and thereby can guarantee public access

This legislation was necessary, primarily because of the Court of Appeal decision. Much has been heard about the Court of Appeal decision, many interpretations have been given of the Court of Appeal decision, and much has been claimed that the Court of Appeal did not itself claim in its decision. But the most important aspect of that decision was that it said Māori should have the right to be able to determine to pursue an action in the Māori Land Court, and it is that right that is preserved in the new legislation. What is different, however, is that the only vehicle that was available to be able to pursue whether there was a Māori customary right was the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act. It was that Act that in effect did away with the common law rights, by putting them in legislation. In doing so, it provided a process whereby land could be vested in the freehold title and ownership of Māori. It was that vital fact that made it necessary for the Government to clarify who in fact had ownership of the foreshore and seabed. It had always been assumed it was in the Crown. To take away any doubt from that—and doubt was raised in the Court of Appeal decision—it has been necessary for this House to legislate that with clarity. That is essentially what the legislation is about.

Much has been heard in terms of argument, one way or the other, about what the effects will be. The Government has undertaken a 9-month process of consultation, discussion, and debate. I wish to put on the record my appreciation of, and gratitude to, those Māori members who have fully participated in all the meetings that have taken place to work through the issues, to ensure the recognising and guaranteeing all New Zealanders’ rights in this legislation. It was not an easy task for them, but they hung in there; they were prepared to fight for their people to ensure that Māori rights were protected in this legislation.

It was also essential that Crown ownership be put beyond doubt. That was what the Government declared right from the outset, and that is precisely what we have done. We have done that for one purpose: to ensure that all New Zealanders have access to the foreshore and seabed. Māori, European Pākehā, and all people who have the privilege to live in this land, see it as their right to be able to access, and have the benefit of going to, the beaches, foreshores, and coastline around New Zealand.

Today the Government told us what it is going to do about the seabed and foreshore of this country. After 9 months of deception, it has finally sold out on those New Zealanders who had believed that the seabed and foreshore, rightly, were held by the Crown. The Government came out last December with a package, all dressed up in Christmas wrapping, and, finding it to be unacceptable to the public, it has gone about this Mickey-Mouse consultation process, tossed it back into an Easter box, and served it up as being all-new and a great answer. It is none of those things; it is just the same old stuff repackaged, with different names—a sell-out—and most New Zealanders will understand it to be that. Last time, when the Government brought out the Christmas package, Parekura Horomia was Father Christmas. This time, Winston Peters is the Easter bunny, and New Zealanders will not forgive him, or the Labour Government, for this legislation.

This bill will herald a massive escalation in the treaty grievance process, and New Zealanders will pay and pay for years to come as Māori parade themselves before the High Court, claiming that not only their ancestral title—not only their customary rights—but also, apparently, some bundle of otherwise undefined rights means that the Government will have to compensate them for what has apparently been lost. This must be one of the first times in the world that people will be able to claim compensation for something they never had. They can thank New Zealand First and Winston Peters for that, because we all know it is a waste of time even talking to Labour members about it.

I say to David Parker that in voting for this legislation, he will say goodbye to the Otago seat. I say to Clayton Cosgrove that he should not expect to be returned in Waimakariri when he votes for this sort of legislation. I say to Rick Barker that he should say goodbye to Tukituki. And I say to Ann Hartley—and this is a foregone conclusion—that there is no question she is going.

The thing about this legislation is that no one will be happy. Those Māori members know that when they go back to their people, and say: “Well, yes, the Government is asserting a sort of Crown ownership at a low level, but don’t worry, we have kaitiakitanga over the seabed and foreshore.”, that that will not be enough to satisfy them. The rest of New Zealand, the non-Māori communities, will know that it does not matter what the Government says. As long as there is legislation asserting that those with ancestral connection to the coastline hold kaitiakitanga over it—governance and control, the two things that stop one from doing things; the two things that limit one from doing things—then they will not be at all happy. That is the essence of the sell-out in the proposed legislation.

I want to ask those Labour members whether they think it is fair that the entire coastline of New Zealand—all but one or two little spots—will come under the auspices of ancestral connection, and therefore be subject to governance by Māori interests.

💬 Darren Hughes: That’s not access.

Can the member for Otaki, the otherwise transparent Darren Hughes, tell us whether he thinks his people will believe that that means all New Zealanders are being treated equally. It does not. When one reads a little bit further into the proposal, one sees that there will be special provisions under the Resource Management Act for Māori interests when it comes to the seabed and foreshore around this country.

So rather than New Zealand First taking up the cudgel for all New Zealanders who want to get into development and improve their economic stakes but find the Resource Management Act a barrier, New Zealand First has said: “Well, we’ll do it just for Māori.” That is what we have happening in this House today. The embattled Labour Party, which cannot get even its own members to vote for its legislation, is relying on Winston Peters.

Today we have witnessed the worst face of opportunism in politics. We have witnessed the ugly face of populism in politics. There is an old saying: “Some talk, others do.” The reason why New Zealanders can trust this legislation is that for decades the only consistent party on this issue, and since its formation, has been New Zealand First. That is why every Māori and European can know that it is fair.

Gerry Brownlee repeated the mantra of Orewa. He said that there should be one law for all. We agree. That is our speech. We know where it comes from. He said that people should have equal rights. We agree. We know where that speech comes from. The problem for National members is that today they are angry because the “king tide” is over for them. That is why they put up the person least qualified to understand this legislation. What he said in the House today, in question time and just now, demonstrates that he has not even read the legislation. What is the ancestral title? It is purely recognition. I invite National to get a lawyer to tell it what is going on. It has got a few. National should not put Gerry up and should stop embarrassing the party.

I heard Gerry Brownlee say on 3ZB Christchurch that the Treaty of Waitangi Tribunal had no legal standing when it comes to findings. I thought “I do not believe that the deputy leader of the National Party and the spokesperson on Māori Affairs is out there wantonly making stupid, uninformed statements.” Everybody knows that that statement is absurdly untrue. It is an outrage. It is a manifestation of stupidity. But there is an old saying—and it applies to Mr Hide—“The malady of the ignorant is to be ignorant without knowing it.” There are the founders of National and of ACT with their fingerprints and their DNA all over the mess of Waitangi, and here they pose as the saviours. Boy, one has to be arrogant to take that position!

Here are the facts. The foreshore and seabed will now belong to all New Zealanders. Is that good? Customary rights will be for all, regardless of race. Is that good? When people go before the courts in disputes, there will be equality. Is that good? Is it right that the local authority can now appear at the Māori Land Court representing every New Zealander in its area? Is that good? It is good. Is it good that for the first time we have a limit of 10 years to make an application? People will have certainty of time.

We have delivered something that could be perceived just a short while ago to be impossible. We have got ourselves out of the impasse, and for 200 years New Zealanders will understand the day this law was—[Interruption]—That is why ACT members are mad and National members are angry and irate, because on this issue they now no longer matter. Don Brash made this speech, but as John Wayne would say: “It’s one thing to steal a man’s horse outside the saloon; it’s quite another to be able to stay on it and try to get out of town.” When asked about the detail, he never understands and does not know. He says: “Send Gerry out there.” The best thing that Gerry can do is to keep on going out with Tame Iti. In fact, Tame Iti’s art makes more sense than Gerry’s speeches, and that is saying something.

💬 Darren Hughes: Bring back Nick!

Yes, I do say National should bring back Nick Smith. He was far clearer in his mind, far more stable, far more calm, and far more on top of the job than the present incumbent, but, then again, all officers of the National Party, as we have known for a number of years, are purely temporary.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I may have been wrong, but I think I heard in Mr Peters’ speech a suggestion that I had not read the seabed and foreshore bill currently before the House.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That member will be seated.

No, I am making a point of order.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, and the member knows it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: It had better be a point of order, and not a debating point. His last point of order was a debating point, and the member knows it.

I seek the leave of the House to request Mr Peters to table the seabed and foreshore legislation, which clearly he has seen when no other member of the House has.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member knows he cannot do that, and he should learn his Standing Orders.

This morning the Government’s foreshore and seabed legislation got caught between a rock and a hard place, or, rather, between a “Peter” and a “Peters”. This is a dilemma entirely of the Government’s own making. This morning we witnessed an extraordinary farce of two parties threatening to withdraw support that they both previously promised for a large and complex bill they both supported, on the basis of two little words: “public domain”. The silliest part of that is that those two words have absolutely no legal or practical significance whatever in the legislation.

Hon member: Tell that to the United Future people.

That member should tell it to his own people. The Greens are strongly opposed to the direction that the Government has taken, and, therefore, also to the legislation. But I have to say that my sympathies are with the Prime Minister as she tries to negotiate the numbers with the two Peters who are battling over the number of angels on the head of a pin. All this is a perfect diversion from the substantive issues that are raised by this legislation, which are serious. This is not an occasion for political game-playing. This is about how New Zealanders live together in the 21st century. It is about a good-faith approach to the treaty relationship. It is about sustainable management of the coast, and we are still a long way from achieving that in New Zealand.

The Government’s political problem is of its own making. It stems from a hasty, panic reaction to the Court of Appeal decision and to the expected Pākehā backlash that has been whipped up by other politicians, and I have to say, particularly by Peter Dunne and Nick Smith who led the march in Nelson claiming that the rights of ordinary New Zealanders to go to the beach were being seriously threatened. That has never been true. No Māori leaders we have spoken to—and there have been many—want exclusive title or want to stop people enjoying the beach. All they want is their mana and their kaitiakitanga recognised.

There was another option the Government had. We put an option forward at the beginning, we have continued to put it forward, and we are still prepared to work with the Government if it changes its mind and decides to go down that path. The Government has a set of four principles underlying this legislation. So do we, and they are also four. The first principle is sustainable management of the foreshore and seabed for the benefit of future generations and of the coastal marine ecosystems. The second principle is that rights established in law by the courts, whether by Māori or Pākehā, should not be confiscated. The third principle is that there should be no more private and exclusive title over foreshore and seabed. The fourth principle is that public access must be protected, except for very special areas where environmental protection, or historical, cultural, or spiritual significance, makes this inappropriate. All those principles could have been satisfied by a simple amendment to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act to the effect that for foreshore and seabed land the title that the Māori Land Court could vest in hapū would be a collective title and would be a non-saleable title.

Part of issuing that title would be a negotiation of a public access memorandum on the title to give confidence to the public, to allow Māori to exercise their hospitality to the rest of New Zealand, and to protect highly significant areas from disturbance.

I do not often agree with Gerry Brownlee, but this legislation will, in his words, lead to massive escalation of treaty claims. It is founded on confiscation both of whatever customary title the courts might have found remains, and of the right to go to court to find out what title remains. My grandchildren, and all of our grandchildren, will inherit this albatross and will have to try to right the injustice.

If we return to sustainable management of the coast, surely the people who have lived there for many generations ought to be a part of ensuring that sustainable management. We see the Crown management now pouring sewage into coastal waterways, and allowing four-wheel drives to run over dunes.

Was that not a bizarre speech? A mature-aged woman from the Coromandel representing the Greens is now the champion for tino rangatiratangaism!

I have to agree with the leader of New Zealand First—the National Party and the ACT party are inconsequential to any debate on nationhood whatsoever. Why? On the one hand the Court of Appeal will bring a judgment down, and in the bedrock of the principles of the National Party—the desire to uphold the rule of law—they will trample on it. They will trample on it if it is not in favour with their rich, elite little mates.

Secondly, why are those parties inconsequential? Because they will nationalise and socialise private property rights founded by the Court of Appeal of this country. That policy is duplicitous, and we should ring the bells up and down this country and advise the country exactly what Don Brash stands for. It is nothing about nationhood, it is everything about patronage to his new, rich mates—cheap mates!

Let us get it right about moving forward. This Government is the only Government—whether it is on infrastructure issues, whether it is on the management of a wonderful and sustained economy, or whether it is on the lowest unemployment rates served up to this nation; it is this Labour-led Government that will produce the results, and continue to produce them. It is this Government—only a Labour-led Government—that can sort out the race-related issues. Here on this side of the House is the face of the future of this nation. Over there is the past, and a failed past.

People need to realise that we are talking about “solutionhood”, not victimhood as they say over there. They are very good at engaging with what is wrong. They can tell people about angst, hurt, hate, and frustration. They have no solutions. Over here we are driven by “solutionhood”, not victimhood.

Tomorrow when the seabed and foreshore legislation is tabled in this House for the very first time on a very complex issue, we will have one of the best results for every Kiwi in this country. It will not please Gerry Brownlee. It will not please Don Brash. It will not please Titewhai Harawira. It will not please Ken Mair. But to hell with them. We are putting something on the table for the benefit of all Kiwis, and so be it.

And here is the message to the tino rangatiratanga people in the Greens, and to the tino rangatiratanga people outside this Parliament. The sovereignty of this Parliament is the one thing that underpins everything about this country. The supremacy of this Parliament is what underpins the whole constitution, and this Parliament will make the rules. It will regulate. That is why we will assert Crown ownership. We will assert Crown ownership because Māori have a relationship to the treaty with the Crown. We will assert Crown ownership because it is through this Parliament that it is asserted. We will assert Crown ownership because it is through this Parliament that it will be regulated, and it is through regulation that we can be protected. That is why we will assert Crown ownership in the legislation tomorrow.

Furthermore, we will give everyone the right to go to the Māori Land Court to explore the extent of their rights. We will allow them, in the event that they are not happy with that, to go to the High Court to assert their rights. Even if one happens to be a non-Māori, one gets to go to the High Court to assert those rights.

We heard from Mr Gerry Brownlee in a very poor speech as usual. He said, once again, that this will lead to years and years of uncertainty. There is a time frame on this legislation, and it is 10 years. There is certainty here. There is closure here. There is justice. That is something that only a Labour-led Government could serve up.

I want to send one other message to the born-again horis out there who are jumping up and down over this issue: if they want people to walk across the House, if they want people to become members of the National Party, and if they want people to vote for Don Brash, so be it. Let them look at this document. Let them look at this information, and for the first time they will have a platform to make an informed decision.

At no time prior have we been able to lay something on the table out in our communities. Tomorrow we will do that. We will go on the front foot. What is the solution? We are putting it on the table. If somebody has something better, let us put it on the table. Let us have a proper conversation about that. We will bring closure, certainty, and justice. That is what it is about. What underpins this great country is fairness to all. Tomorrow this bill will do exactly that. It will uphold the greatness of our institutions. We will not pull them to pieces, as the National Party will want to do. We will not pull them to pieces, as the ACT party and the cronies next to them will want to do. We will bring closure on it.

In the interests of those in this Parliament being able to exercise their rights to be heard on this issue, members on this side of the House would like to hear what Tariana Turia, Nanaia Mahuta, and Georgina Beyer have to say on this issue. The speaking slots left in this general debate will not be filled by those people, neither will they be filled by Mahara Okeroa, Mita Ririnui, or Dave Hereora. Let us hear whether Māori members of the caucus believe that this legislation will do anything other than the one simple thing that John Tamihere knows exactly what this legislation will do—that is, open a can of worms that we will never be able to reseal.

Parekura Horomia’s press release this afternoon summed it up. He said that the Government foreshore and seabed legislation would ensure that Māori traditional rights and interests would be guaranteed and protected. That is one thing. He said that those rights would be enhanced, and that is exactly what this legislation will do. He said in his press release that it is about guardianship, but actually what we are seeing is the creation of a new legal concept of mutual or co-ownership. In the event that a particular group is able to prove somehow some obscure type of ancestral connection to a particular area of foreshore and seabed, we do not have Crown ownership for all New Zealanders in that case.

It is completely misleading to tell the public of New Zealand that Crown ownership will remain for all New Zealanders. If those ancestral rights are recognised, a system of mutual or co-ownership will exist. But worse than that, we now find that two systems are available, firstly, with respect to the Resource Management Act, and secondly, in respect of new High Court jurisdiction. It is worth looking at what the Government said about what will happen under the Resource Management Act: “The Act will require that if another party seeks a resource consent for an activity that would have significant adverse effect on the exercise of the customary right, then it would be declined.” For the first time in New Zealand’s legislative history we are writing a veto into the Resource Management Act for one particular group of New Zealanders, and that is absolutely outrageous.

But worse, the role of the High Court has been extended as well. New jurisdiction is created, whereby an applicant group may seek a declaration by the court that a cumulative bundle of rights exists. If that does not open a war chest for lawyers in this country to make those sorts of applications to the High Court non-stop, I would be very surprised, indeed.

This Government has failed to address the very serious concerns New Zealanders have over the foreshore and seabed. It has failed to put in place a concrete piece of legislation. When Parekura Horomia is saying in press releases things like: “For Māori this legislation is all about guardianship, and ensures the protection and sustainability of everything in the ocean.”, this ball game is far from over. They have kicked for touch. John Tamihere knows that this legislation is second rate. Members opposite will rue the day that this legislation came into this House.

Mr Power talked about war chests and cans of worms. I would like to talk about another can of worms that exists in this country at present in the form of 4,580 children on the books of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services who are unallocated. Last week United Future launched a policy initiative to address the many concerns relating to the Government’s agency, the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. The project for us has been more than 6 months in the making, and reflects wide consultation with individuals and with community groups, plus an extensive look at international examples of child protection and family services. The beauty of being part of a centrist, common-sense party is that one is not constrained by unworkable ideologies. We believe that we have been able to chart a pragmatic path through the many obstacles facing this agency.

The problems are very real. The scale of demand is enormous, with the number of notifications increasing at a rate of 15 percent a year. That means that social workers are able to deal with only the most pressing and critical cases. Less urgent cases wait and wait. Many have been re-notified for a second and a third time, and often they deteriorate during the waiting process. The statutory requirements are very clear. This agency is meant both to provide child protection services and to work preventively with families to keep homes a safe place for all New Zealand children.

United Future is convinced that if the work continues to be handled by a single agency, the system will continue to fall victim to the tyranny of the urgent. We propose a dual-intake approach that separates out child protection work from the prevention work that is at present largely left undone. The essential investigative work that must take place when allegations of abuse are made will continue, using competent, statutory social workers who are unmuddied by being over-familiar with the families they have to investigate, which happened with the Aplin-Jetson girls. Notifications of children deemed to be living in medium to low risk circumstances where abuse has not yet occurred would be referred for assessment to a family support coordination agency, which would either provide appropriate help and support directly, or would be able to refer cases to appropriate existing community agencies that are equipped now to do the work. It almost seems like stating the obvious to point out that the $109.9 million of additional funding promised by the Government to address the concerns of the baseline review could be distributed to extend the capacity of existing community non-profit organisations to clear the in-box of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services of the current 4,580 unallocated cases.

The existing bottleneck created by a single, national call centre needs addressing. It is not uncommon for cases to have expired, in terms of their required response time, by the time they are passed on to the appropriate Department of Child, Youth and Family Services office. While United Future sees an ongoing need for a centralised record of calls, so that transient cases can be tracked, we also believe that staff at more regionally based call centres could make much more pragmatic assessments, with the benefit of local knowledge about the services available to families in their regions. That would speed up the referral process. United Future wants to see the problem of children’s safety laid at the feet of those who are ultimately responsible—that is, the parents, the families, and the local communities, which provide the context in which children lead their lives. Local non-governmental organisations and family networks should be the first port of call when prevention is required.

We want to see resources spent on public education campaigns to facilitate the attitudinal change that Mick Brown called for a few years ago. United Future’s approach is not just a mirroring of the baseline review recommendation; it places a much greater share of the responsibility back on to communities, but on to communities working in partnership with State-appointed family support coordinators. This proposal represents radical change, but it is radical change that is working overseas.

For the ACT party I went to the press conference this morning at 11.45. I sat there and as I listened to the Hon Dr Michael Cullen announcing the Government’s policy, in that curiously tired “This is really just all beneath me.” voice, with the slight cloth-cap element that he affects—that, indeed, he must affect as a Labour Party politician—I was reminded of another Englishman of a few years ago, one called Neville Chamberlain. “Peace in our time”, Neville Chamberlain said, as he came back from Munich. I was reminded of that when Michael Cullen was speaking, because he has introduced something called ancestral connection, which no one in this country has ever seen before, which no court has ever asked for, and which no one in the English-speaking world knows about. It is something that comes by right of historical association.

Is it colour-blind now? Well, the Rt Hon Winston Peters would try to say it represented something of “one law for all”. Curiously, Michael Cullen did not seem to think so. He was quaintly amused at the thought there might actually be any Pākehā who could qualify—

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Not surprisingly.

Not surprisingly, when the trigger date is 1840 for something that Dr Cullen says is not a treaty right. Curiously, the Government has selected 1840, and, of course, not leaving any possibility, which a lawyer might expect, for it to start from the time that a custom is actually established.

Does it respect property rights? Well, the Hon Margaret Wilson told us today that these things will be property rights. I say to her that it is odd that it will expressly exclude the property right that Māori were promised under article 2 of the treaty, in that they cannot sell it or turn it to valuable account. What does “ancestral connection” mean for ordinary New Zealanders, who want to go fishing, who want to picnic or camp, who want to walk or paddle in the surf? What it means is tyres slashed, campers bashed, picnickers menaced—not this year, maybe not next year, maybe not even during the next 10 years while the lawyers are taking their pickings out of this process. It will be the next generation of young Māori who look at it and say: “What is this ancestral connection? Clearly, someone thought we were owed something, because they’ve given it to us.” But what remote resemblance does ancestral connection bear to a useable right, a property right, as the Hon Margaret Wilson tried to describe it? When an ancestral connection has been offered, and one gets a pig’s ear instead of a property right, who would blame the next generation of Māori for saying it was a booby prize, a consolation prize—“They’ve acknowledged we were owed something, and they’ve given us something that means nothing.”?

In fact, what it does mean is an absolute negative. The only thing it will mean to Māori is to be a nuisance to all their neighbours and local government. It is feudal. It says political power will go by descent; it says political power will go by inheritance. When political power goes by inheritance, of course it is abused. Māori are as human as the rest of us. Only racists think that, for some reason, inherited political privilege that has been conferred on a race basis will not be abused, will not be resented, will not be turned to account by Māori inventing taniwha around every headland. Why would people not invent taniwha, if it is the only way to benefit? These taniwha are amazingly greedy! They are satisfied by money. But why would Māori not invent one, if that is the only way of turning an ancestral connection order to account?

That is what this Government is storing up for this community. This Government is storing up a perpetual conflict of interests; it is storing them up in a way that elected officials cannot resist, and kaitiaki-ship is made up as we go along, because it is based on tikanga. Tikanga and the rule of law are not compatible. Tikanga is not law. Māori have been sensible enough to say that custom must evolve; it cannot be frozen in time. Of course, the Māori Land Court can order ancestral connection orders as it chooses, because ancestral connection has no relevance to anything that our law has known before and no relevance to anything that is going to be known in the future.

I just want to say one thing to the buffoon from the National Party, and the member from ACT, who have just spoken. They challenge our Māori members to stand up. I say to Simon Power that John Tamihere, the Associate Minister of Māori Affairs, has already got up, but I ask members opposite where Georgina te Heuheu is and where Donna Awatere Huata is. Are they going to reel them out; are they going to let them speak? Oh no, they will not, because each of those parties has dealt to them. I say that, from that speech from the ACT member—that sort of doomsaying—he should be in the National Party, because all we have heard from the National Party today is division. There is nothing about nation building. They try to fire up the race issue. Today they have fired the best bullet they have in their gun—the race issue. Now the gun is empty and the people know it.

I can tell members that today is a historic day, because today we actually continue to build a nation. Today the Government has put forward a positive solution—the positive solution—for the seabed and foreshore issue. What did we hear from Wayne Mapp and his cronies? Zip! Nothing! They had no policy and no solution. It was just “scratch the scab” racial division. Tomorrow the legislation is tabled in the House, and, as Michael Cullen has said publicly, it delivers four-square on our promises—that is, protecting public access, and guaranteeing public ownership. It delivers four-square on those promises, and it enshrines the four principles that we went out, as a Government, to consult on—access, regulation, protection, and certainty.

Today we have a choice. The choice today is between those who want to build a nation, by providing solutions and constructive policies, and those who want to engage in the squalid politics of self-interest, self-indulgence, and political expediency—on all sides. The people of New Zealand have given this Parliament and this Government a clear message: they want this issue sorted and they want it sorted soon. We have got the message, and that is why this legislation will create certainty for all Kiwis; certainty that the rights that, as the Prime Minister said, they had a year ago, and generations ago, will be preserved for future generations. These proposals do that. The choice today is between those who want to implement these constructive solutions—that is, us the Government—or those who are self-indulgent, who pit Kiwi against Kiwi, and that is the National Party, which uses slogans and rhetoric to fire people up on the race issue; or, equally, those in other places who call on people of non-Māori descent to go back to their ancestral homelands and leave this country. I say the people of New Zealand have rejected the two latter points and they have accepted our solution—that is, to deal with this issue in a fair-minded way, because Kiwis are fair-minded. They have rejected the slogans from those opposite. They want substance. They want the promise of a viable future.

It is now time for a mature examination of the legislation. I am not bound by collective responsibility, but I am bound, like every member of Parliament, to do what is right; not to do what is politically expedient, not to do what is self-indulgent, but to do what is right, so that I can look myself in the mirror every morning and front up. I say that the kids in the playpen opposite have had their day. The kids in the playpen across the aisle have had their day. It is now time—and it starts tomorrow—for the adults to take back the debate. When the legislation is tabled tomorrow the adults will, indeed, take back that debate, and we will get on with the job of building a nation. We will get on with the job of delivering for all Kiwis the guarantee that they wanted and the guarantee that the Prime Minister gave them—to protect public access and to protect public ownership. That is enshrined in the bill.

I challenge the National Party, and the bovver boys from ACT, and some—I do not say all; some of those members are much respected over here—of the trendies from the Green Party who will vote against this legislation, to put up or shut up. They should put up their legislative solution, put a draft on the Table so that we can read it—because we will put up our solution tomorrow, and they will be able to read it—and then we can have the debate. I will go out with pride to my constituency, with pride and no fear, because I know that Kiwis will support this legislation. I know they will support Crown ownership and they will support certainty, and we will get on with building a nation.

Today is the day that New Zealand First was conned by the Government, and the reason is that this bill is simply the December 17 package dressed up in drag, and New Zealand First simply did not recognise that. There is only the shadow of Crown ownership. For the last 130 years, we have had the full substance of Crown ownership. After this legislation is enacted, there will be only the shadow of it. The reason is that the Māori Land Court will have the huge new jurisdiction of granting ancestral connection.

What is the difference between mana and the ancestral connection of the 17 December package?

In reality, there is very little difference. What that will mean is co-management. We heard last month the Hon Parekura Horomia saying that is what he required—co-management. Why will he be voting for this bill this week—or this coming month? Because that is what the bill delivers—co-management. That means control, and control is tantamount to ownership. So when the Government says it has delivered Crown ownership, it is not as we would know it. It is not what New Zealanders have always understood it to be. This is the mere shadow, not the substance, of Crown ownership.

In addition, there is a whole new raft of provisions in the Resource Management Act. Everyone in the country has been saying we should simplify that Act and reduce its complexity. What is the Government’s answer? Its answer is to make that Act more complicated and provide for even more consultation, more bureaucracy, and more control. That is what is to happen. The effect of that is a veto, because—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: This is an interesting topic. The member shouldn’t be boring.

—as Mr Mallard knows, a customary right is a property right, and that means a veto. Sure, the word is not there, but when I read in the report that it means that councils have to decline to issue a resource consent, that is the same as a veto. It is a veto in any other words. So this legislation, far from solving the situation, actually divides New Zealanders one against the other. It delivers to some New Zealanders more powers and more rights than others have. How is that equality before the law?

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: What’s your solution? What would you do?

National’s solution is simple: to provide the substance—full Crown ownership—instead of the shadow, which is what New Zealand First has been sucked into by the Government.

It was extraordinary to hear Mr Peters come along today and say that the New Zealand First members are the saviours, when in reality New Zealanders—Māori and non-Māori alike—will find out they have been conned, and New Zealand First has been a willing participant in that. I also heard Mr Peters saying that the legislation will not be race-based. I ask Government members and the New Zealand First members to tell me who can show ownership back to 1840. Who can show a continuous connection? That seems pretty simple to me, and pretty obvious: it will be Māori, and Māori alone. That is the reality of this legislation, and no dressing up of it in language that talks about equality will get past the reality of inequality.

There was a possibility of having a right answer to the problem delivered by the Court of Appeal. The Prime Minister and the Attorney-General actually had it right back in July last year. They were going to have a simple proposition, one that everyone could understand, which was to confirm Crown ownership. Now, 9 months later, we have a complicated bill that sets New Zealander against New Zealander. It sets some people above others on the basis of racial preferment. [Interruption] Mr Cosgrove may not like the truth of that, but that is the reality of the bill that has been presented.

I say, let us deliver the reality of Crown ownership.

This is my second term in Parliament, and during that period I would never have guessed I would see the day when I and Doug Woolerton would be heckling in unison at a speech made by a National Party member. Thumbs up! There are a number of surprises in the House today. I think there is also an element of shock on the Opposition benches, particularly amongst the National Party members. One thing they did not want to see happen today was a policy on the seabed and foreshore that was fair to all New Zealanders. This is a nation-building policy. Whilst we as Māori members are subject to some criticism for our stand on this issue, in the forefront of our minds is the notion of nation building.

There are a lot of positive things happening in our communities today. I am surprised at what Mr Gerry Brownlee said, and I think he has been a bit untrue to this House. He said he did not support Māori Television, and he would not support the future funding of it. But I listened to his pronunciation of the word “kaitiakitanga” in the House today, and I ask whether he has been watching Māori Television’s Kōrero Mai, because he did a very good job of it. I think the man is actually moved by the new sensation called Māori Television. It is very positive for all New Zealanders.

I welcome the support of the New Zealand First Party in the promotion of this bill, which is fair and just for all New Zealanders. I do have a difficulty, however, with the speech made by the ACT party member Mr Stephen Franks. He asserts that a generation from today young Māori children will be beating up other Māori children on the beaches. What a load of rubbish that is! If that is his view of Māori children, then I am afraid the man needs some advice, and maybe members of the New Zealand First Party will help him in respect of that.

This is an important day for New Zealand. It is important that we debate this issue in this House, because there are elements of this legislation that we need to be comfortable with as New Zealanders. The foreshore and seabed bill is about bonding the nation together, not dividing it. The foreshore and seabed bill delivers four-square on Labour’s promise to protect public access and guarantee public ownership. The four principles—access, regulation, protection, and certainty—remain, and have been finely tuned. The result is a much clearer, more familiar, more transparent, and less bureaucratic framework that is well balanced and will simultaneously guarantee access and recognise Māori customary interests, while protecting the environment and safeguarding against inappropriate profit making. The issue of profit making is important amongst some communities, as we have seen on television in recent weeks and months. There is a lot of pillage and plunder going on at some of our rural beaches, and we have to congratulate the officers of the Ministry of Fisheries on their fine work in monitoring our fisheries.

I am also very surprised at the comments by the National Party member Dr Wayne Mapp. Given his association with Māori communities in the far north, which his wife belongs to, I certainly would have thought he would appreciate the concept of Māori customary property rights, which are non-tradable rights. He is wrong when he says those rights may be traded away. They are an inheritance, and they are also a legacy to future generations. He should know that, given the background of his wife’s family. A number of the assertions that Dr Mapp makes are quite incorrect.

But I will get back to the advantage of the policy. There has been a significant shift from where we were in December of last year, in terms of the authority of the Māori Land Court, and in terms of the authority of the High Court in recognising and acknowledging aboriginal title. Māori can also make application to the Court of Appeal if they so desire, and the Supreme Court right here in Aotearoa is another facility available to them.

I want to give an example of how my parliamentary colleague Dave Hereora and I practise our customary rights in our area of the Bay of Plenty—in particular, Tauranga Moana. We share those customary rights with all comers there, and we do not restrict their access. But at times there has been a lot of infringement of our rights, and we are satisfied that this legislation will give us the opportunity to have those rights not only formalised but also enhanced.

I hesitated in taking this call because it is the last call in the debate, and I had assumed that the great debater of New Zealand politics would take this call. So I waited for the Leader of the Opposition, Dr Brash, to get up to give members his views on the foreshore and seabed package announced by the Government of New Zealand today because he has made such a big fuss about it around the country. He has given all those views around the country, misrepresenting what the Government was attempting to do in partnership with other parties in Parliament. I thought the great debater and new phenomenon of New Zealand politics, who is a humble, first-term member like myself, would have wanted to take the last call in the general debate on this very important day in New Zealand politics. So I am shocked that the Leader of the Opposition sits there, not wanting to take this call on this important issue, while, in the meantime, the Labour-led Government, working with other parties, has been able to come up with a solution to try to move this issue forward.

I am also surprised that the only Māori member of the National Party, the Hon Georgina te Heuheu, was not given the opportunity to take a call today. The three calls for National were taken by Mr Brownlee, Mr Power, and Dr Mapp. They hogged those all for themselves, and, effectively, said the same thing. They misrepresented, they made predictions that will never happen and that they will never be accountable for—because they will always sit on the benches opposite—and they just repeated each other’s mantra: one, two, three. They did not ask for a different view from the National Party caucus. They did not say: “Hang on, we have got three slots. We normally get only two, because we got the worst result in 100 years, and we are down to just two calls in the Wednesday debate.” They said: “No, no. We will take all three for the three white blokes. We will take it all for ourselves.”

I thought Georgina te Heuheu might have been given the chance to speak. Then I contrasted that situation with calls from this side of the House, which were led off by the Hon Margaret Wilson, the Attorney-General, and followed up by the Hon John Tamihere and Mita Ririnui. My friend and colleague Clayton Cosgrove, from the South Island, spoke in the debate, as well. It was a diverse range of speakers from the Labour side of the House, because we believe the solution we have put forward today brings people forward. We do not have the luxury of sitting on the other side and throwing stones at real problems and real challenges that confront New Zealanders and this country. What we have to try to do is put together solutions that bring people together, and that is what today does. To that end, I extend my gratitude to the New Zealand First Party and United Future for working with us. We were not able to get the whole way with United Future, but those members were part of the negotiation because they said: “We want to be part of something positive for New Zealand. We want this to be a vehicle that can bring New Zealanders forward and give certainty to generations of New Zealanders.”

All the National Party has said right throughout the foreshore and seabed debate is: “How can we use this as a vehicle to try to resuscitate our flagging political party?”. I see Mr Power nodding in agreement with that because he knows that ever since June when this decision came out of the Court of Appeal, National members have looked at this issue and said: “How can we divide New Zealand? How can we attack the Labour Party on partisan politics to try to make New Zealanders be fearful about what we own in common partnership? How can we make New Zealanders feel resentment and anger towards other cultural groups in New Zealand? How can we position ourselves to cause the greatest degree of disunity and disharmony in New Zealand?”. What members on this side of the House have been left with and charged to do is to use this issue as a vehicle to bring the country together and give some answers and solutions for the 21st century. Not for us the approach just advocated by Dr Mapp, which is to say: “Anyone can apply for ancestral connections, but hang on, that might only be Māori because they have been here since 1840.”, as though there is something sinister about the fact that Māori can go back to 1840 in New Zealand’s history, whereas not all New Zealanders can. But those New Zealanders who can prove those ancestral connections are able to go and have those customary rights and ancestral rights recognised, and what is wrong with that? If those ancestral rights exist, are demonstrated, can be proven, and they go right back to 1840, what is wrong with recognising them? What is wrong with the fact that in the 1990s that party when in Government recognised the concept of customary rights? And all of a sudden, in 2004, it is a terrible, bad, and evil idea. That point has not been answered by the National Party.

The other point not answered by the National Party is what kind of legislation we would be seeing tomorrow if those members held the Treasury benches. A lot of parties in this House have answered that question, as opposed to Gerry Brownlee, who has a bach in the Marlborough Sounds that goes back six generations. He has gone on television boasting about that. Gerry Brownlee has the opportunity to apply for his ancestral right to his little bach in the Marlborough Sounds, if he can prove it goes back to 1840. If it goes to 1840, he can, but if he is not able to prove that, then that is the situation he finds himself in. The National Party did not give us a policy at any one stage. It did not give anything positive. This is a positive agenda for New Zealand’s future. We are building the country together, and every New Zealander can have pride in what the Government is doing.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.