Dunne Peter: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — First Reading 
Dunne Peter: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:14010] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I apologise to my colleague whose call I have jumped. I say as we start out that this is a very important day for New Zealand. It is a chance to put to rest what has been a 7-year sore in this country right back from the time the original court rulings were made that gave rise to the Foreshore and Seabed Act and all of the associated controversy. I want to go through a little bit of the history because it is relevant to where we have come to today. 
I am delighted to see the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill before the House. I am delighted to see the provisions that effectively take us back to where we were in 2003-04 when the concept of public domain as the way in which the foreshore and seabed would be treated was paramount in the thinking of the previous Labour Government. I want members to remember what happened to overturn that concept. I think it was Harold Macmillan who once said that his party had run into a couple of minor difficulties along the way. The Labour Government of the time ran into a couple of minor difficulties—one of whom is sitting not too far away from me—and as a consequence no longer had a majority to pass that legislation. United Future and the Labour Party at that point had been working on the concept of a public domain solution. When the Government no longer had a majority for that it had to turn to a party that had showed no interest in the foreshore and seabed. 
The New Zealand First Party suddenly saw a chance to come charging over the horizon on its white charger to solve the problem and to claim all the credit. Members will recall that what New Zealand First did as part of its agreement with the Labour Government of the time which was desperate for a majority was to say that any reference to the foreshore and seabed as public domain had to be removed. Mr Peters who used to parade as a great constitutional historian said that we cannot have such Americanisms in our law. In reality of course the notion of the public domain—the common—is an old British tradition. It is not the first time that Mr Peters’ sense of history got the better of him. But the consequence of that decision— 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: Be careful; he’ll be back! 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I will give the member the charity of my silence on that point. The consequence of that decision would set in place the train of events that have led to this bill today. In light of that decision at the time the United Future caucus had no option but to withdraw its support for the Government’s bill. 
I will quote to the House a couple of sections from a letter that I wrote to the Prime Minister of the time on 7 April 2004 because they are quite pertinent to today’s discussion. “Our concern has always been that the concept of Crown ownership by itself is too limiting as it leaves open the possibility at some future point of the Crown for whatever reason deciding arbitrarily to dispose of ownership interest. Recognition of the concept of public domain which you”—being the previous Prime Minister—“yourself acknowledged at one of our earlier discussions had some parallel in the old English common law notion of the common has the important symbolic effect of adding an additional factor to the concept of the ownership of the foreshore and seabed that no Government would be likely to tamper with.” That is the principle that is effectively being given force in this bill. 
I also observed at the time in my letter: “We have not been backward in arguing for and defending that position”—public domain—“in times when the far easier course of action would have been to leave it all to the Government to sort out because we believed this was an issue that transcended normal party politics. It is why we urged you last year”—that is late 2003—“to have discussions with the National Party to explore the possibility of a durable multiparty solution—a course of action we still consider is worth pursuing.” 
I turn that round and acknowledge the support of Labour for this legislation. What is important now as we move forward—and I accept the comments that I have heard Mr Parker make if I heard him accurately over a period of time—is that there are some fine points of distinction between the two measures but they are important. I think there is a basis for moving forward with a strong and durable voice from this Parliament to give effect to a solution that denies the injustice of the last 7 years brought about by political circumstances beyond the control of everyone in the House today to be brutally honest but that have had the effect of causing considerable affront to Maori. Effectively on Crown ownership the legislation stated that the Crown was making decisions on behalf of all of us. 
The reality is that whether we are Maori or Pakeha or whoever we are together on these islands; it is our combined efforts that make this country what it is. The foreshore and seabed is ours—how we resolve particular aspects of it and how we take into account customary use and customary title are matters that we can resolve. But the oppression of the concept of Crown ownership has made that a much more difficult issue over the last 7 years than it needed to be. 
With this bill before the House it is an opportunity for all of us to stand back a little reflect on the events of the last few years and take a course of action forward. I know from discussions with my colleagues to my left—figuratively speaking—and the Attorney-General that there is a genuine commitment to get this right. I get that sense from the Opposition too. This is one of those issues that may not put a big stake in the ground in terms of our identity for the future if we get it right but if we get it wrong it has the ability to start tearing us apart. 
I feel very angry when I reflect on the circumstances that led us to this course. The sheer naked political opportunism from people whose sole motivation was not to bring the country together but to divide to score points and to display bitterness— 
Hon David Parker 
: Don Brash. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
:—the member quotes a name and I may not disagree with him in that context either—has got us to this point. The reality is that if we continue with what has been extremely divisive law—[ 
Interruption 
]—and I ask members opposite to have their discussions elsewhere—then this country will be the big loser. This bill provides an opportunity to move forward. There will be a select committee process and there will be a lot of public interest in the bill’s provisions. Some of the talk I heard to my right—and that is not speaking figuratively—earlier today puts up a number of straw men that are simply not justifiable. There are people out there at the moment who are using this as a tool I think to foment racial tension in this country in a way that is distinctly nasty and unhelpful. 
We have the opportunity as a Parliament with this legislation to put to bed once and for all this festering sore. I acknowledge the support of the overwhelming majority of the House for the legislation and I hope that as it goes through its various parliamentary processes that it can be either modified to accommodate some of the points that are at issue or its support can be sustained. I am absolutely convinced of this point: if we do not repeal the existing legislation given its historical overtones we will be creating a huge rod a huge tension and an ongoing understandable bitterness in this country from which we cannot recover.