Hughes Darren: General Debates 
Hughes Darren: General Debates 
[Volume:616;Page:12457] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 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 Maori 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 Maori because they have been here since 1840.” as though there is something sinister about the fact that Maori 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.