Mark Ron: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Mark Ron: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17172] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I have been sitting here just pondering on the path that this legislation has taken over the past 18 months finally to get to this point. It occurs to me that the real crime the greatest hoax the biggest fraud the most unforgivable act of deception because it misled because it promoted a falsity that created a mirage of ownership and because it tantalised the most vulnerable and the most impoverished with a promise of unlimited wealth and that was fuelled by underlying greed wrapped in a pretence of tikanga and carried on a wave of emotion was the promotion of the lie that Maori owned the foreshore and the seabed. Why does that vex me so? Because from that falsity that misrepresentation has been born a festering broth that has incited racism from Maori and toward Maori that does New Zealand no good whatsoever. 
Perhaps the thing that hurts the most is that it will all sadly end in tears. It may well be that it takes 3 years for some of my extended whanaunga to come to the final realisation that the belief the trust and the faith that they have placed in the gravy train conductors of the Maori Party the 21st century missionaries of the United Future party and the intergalactic travellers of the Green Party have led them totally up the garden path. I have to say that probably some of the most— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I will remind members again to be silent when a point of order is being heard. 
Metiria 
Turei 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I take personal offence at being described as “intergalactic” by that member in his speech and I ask that he be required to withdraw and apologise for that offensive derogatory remark. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I think we are starting to get into some difficulty. This is a robust Chamber. There are comments that are offensive which we all sometimes make but there is also a level of language that is representative of people’s description of what they think people’s positions and views are. Describing somebody in terms of being an intergalactic traveller suggests he or she is out in some different area of the ether. Whether or not one regards it as offensive I do not think one can make a case in this House that it is an offensive remark of the sort that requires a withdrawal and apology. We in this Parliament will find ourselves with the shortest  
Oxford Dictionary 
 in the world if we are not careful. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I think Dr Cullen is correct and we have had some marginal calls at times and Mr Prebble certainly pointed that out yesterday. I really do not think that that comment is one that requires a withdrawal. 
RON MARK 
: Thank you Madam Chairperson and thank you Dr Cullen for your wisdom. I have to say that many of my whanaunga are going to wake up in 3 years’ time. It may well be that the Maori Party and even perhaps the Green Party have more representatives here in this House after this next election. That may well be the case. But I predict that the realisation will come home to all New Zealanders after they have had their holidays in the sun on beaches and rocky foreshores up and down the country over the next few months that much of what they have been hearing is lies deception and falsity. We as a nation will thank the wisdom the fortitude and the determination of the two parties involved who brought this legislation to the House. 
I say to my colleagues in the National Party that I heard all their arguments here. They complained that there were too many words in the bill that it had too many pages that it was too long and too difficult— 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I waited for a minute. The member used the word “lies” and I hoped he was not referring to any member in this Chamber because that would be disorderly but his subsequent words gave the very clear impression that that expression had been aimed in the direction of members. If so I believe that offence could be taken and the member should be asked to withdraw. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I certainly did not take that remark in that context. It was taken in the context of the member’s description of the legislation. I listened very carefully. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I just ask for consistency because only yesterday in the Chamber—and I have the  
Hansard 
 in front of me—you ruled the word “fib” out of order. That was not said in respect of anybody else. You said it was an inappropriate word. Can you explain to me why when a National member uses the word “fib” it is ruled out of order and I am required to withdraw but when Mr Ron Mark used the word “lies” because he happens to be supporting the— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I will explain in simple terms to the member. Very simply if a member uses that term in relation to another member it will be ruled out. If a member uses it in relation to legislation as it has been used throughout the debate—and that has been clarified several times—it is perfectly in order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is it a new point of order? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Yes it is. I need you to clarify for us whether a member of the National Party talking about the legislation and the way it is being presented and suggesting that there are fibs being told is different from a member of the New Zealand First Party which supports the bill saying that the Opposition has at some points represented the bill in a way that could be construed as lies. It is the same thing. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The distinction is a very simple one. It is a question of who is telling the fibs. If it is a member of this House then the accusation is out of order. I listened to Mr Mark very carefully and what he said was not in the context of members of the House. If it had been it would clearly have been out of order. The comment yesterday was in fact in the context of members of the House but in any case it cannot be relitigated now—it is in the past. I suggest therefore that the rule is quite clear.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Ron Mark referred to lies and other issues then said he now wanted to talk to his colleagues in the National Party which clearly bisected what he was saying before from what he was about to say. They heard that. But my point of order is that I am sick and tired of the number of points of order being raised by this petulant National Party time after time that are without any merit whatsoever. I have never seen such juvenile behaviour in my whole time in Parliament. Those members sit over there not knowing the Standing Orders or what is right or fair and raise countless points of order when we are talking. We are totally sick of it. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Madam Chair I think I indicated to you in the first place that I had waited because I thought there was some doubt as to whether there was a reference to members. Far be it from me to offer you guidance but I think the normal course in such circumstances has been for presiding officers to ask the member whether he or she was referring to members of the House and if an assurance is given that he or she was not then that is accepted. I was hoping that Mr Mark was not referring to a member of the House. If you were to avail yourself of that facility Madam Chair I am sure Mr Mark could put the matter right for us.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Mark had indicated to me but that was not required as I had heard it very clearly. I say to Mr Peters on his contribution to the point of order that yes this has been a robust debate and yes there have been a lot of unnecessary calls for points of order that have not been points of order. 
RON MARK 
: Given the rather unacceptable and persistent interdictions on my speech which was clearly hitting a raw nerve in some areas I seek leave that my time be restarted.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is not. 
RON MARK 
: Thank you and I thank members. I have to say that that is the sort of thing one gets when one is rudderless—when one pledges to come and fight a piece of legislation with every sinew of one’s soul bones and heart yet sits in the Chamber and does not take one call. In my time in the military we always taught people a few things and they have been demonstrated by the courage and fortitude behind the passage of this legislation: firstly that one leads by example; secondly that one does not ask soldiers to do anything that one is not prepared to do oneself; and thirdly that one always puts one’s troops first and encounters the most dangerous situations with them for them by them and at precisely the same time that combat has been engaged. I have to say that the reason that certain parties in this House lose their way get distracted and end up acting like petulant little schoolboys is that they do not have a leader. I have only one plea for the former great National Party and that is to “Bring back Bill!”—“Bring back Bill!”. I know that had Bill English been sitting in that chair he would have fought this legislation tooth and nail down to the wire with every sinew every fibre and every drop of blood in his body. But that is not what we have seen here in the last couple of days is it? 
To my colleagues on my left—who are normally politically speaking on the right—ACT I say that I am impressed. The most consistent competent argument and debate through these many hours in opposition to the bill has come from the ACT party. But the tragedy is that that is irrelevant because ACT will not be here next year. 
Then I come to my dearly beloved whanaunga in the Maori Party. There was not one sound syllable utterance murmur or mutter from that great party which came to this House with placards and banners waving and flying in the wind and with 10-foot photographs held high. It was going to fight the bill all the way to its doomy gloomy grave. Not a sound not a mutter not a murmur not a syllable has passed through its member’s lips and those lips are being paid $100000 a year for doing zilch—nothing. Well done! 
Turning to the United Future party and the Greens I ask them to spare us the indignity. Maori have put up with and tolerated the socialist rantings and the favours of missionaries for decades and decades—for 200 years. We do not need any more. The missionaries have had their day. They should go to Africa and find some indigenous people who need their help because we do not. Maori are quite capable of articulating for themselves their own views and deciding among themselves what they want. What they want is what is right for all New Zealanders and they do not want to be misled they do not want to have their hands held they do not want warm fuzzies and cuddlies and they certainly do not need to communicate with outer space on that frequency any more. 
 I am going to deal with a couple of inconsistencies and some of the arguments put up by my National Party friends. I have heard Dr Nick Smith’s arguments regarding access and I take on board his comments that this issue has affected him in his Nelson area. But I have never heard a word about the travesty that has been going on in Riversdale ever since I was 11 years old. Today that iron fence that goes right down into the breakers down to the low-tide mark that is made out of railway irons and that was owned and put up by Mr Meredith still stands there in testament to as a monument to the days when he used to stand on that beach on that foreshore and stop us Maori and Pakeha from gathering kai moana off that beach. There has not been a word said against him!