Prebble Richard: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — First Reading 
Prebble Richard: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12730] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Yes. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am keen to hear from the member but it is my understanding that the Labour Party has three slots. She is still a Labour Party member and I say to the Labour Party that it should allow her to speak rather than saying to the House that we should change the rules just because the Labour Party is not prepared to hear a dissenting voice. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. The member is entitled to object to the seeking of leave. He did so. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Every now and then in the life of a nation an issue of moment arises that requires people to put aside partisan differences and work together for a solution that befits that nation as a whole. I believe that this issue is one of those. It is a great failure of leadership on behalf of the two major parties that we are in this situation today and that 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 so that a lot of the division bitterness uncertainty and rancour that has divided this country in recent times could be avoided and we could 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 whether 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 with regard to 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—Maori Pakeha and others—that the foreshore and seabed were the collective property of us all but that each one of us had an indistinguishable but inalienable right to its use and enjoyment. 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 ensuing 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 with the Government on—was that in order to ensure ultimately that all New Zealanders had the 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 that is not a 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 that concept 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 because 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 for this bill. 
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 his 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 listening to the debate around the country on their radios have the opportunity to express their views is this: where to from here? Do we continue to see this issue 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? Unless we do that whatever solution we arrive at is a tainted one passed by a narrow majority. In a way it is the same argument that we have about the Supreme Court: that it lacks a moral mandate. The community is divided and that automatically raises the suspicion that what ought to be a mark of some permanence and some stability could 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 the ownership of the seabed and foreshore 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 the previous speaker’s 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. With that there is every prospect of the fear being realised that all of us have whatever side of the argument we are on about this country beginning to tear itself apart. 
 Today is a historic day not just for those of us privileged to sit in this Chamber and take part in this debate but for our country. It is about our nationhood and it is about our future. Fundamentally there is no prospect of this country going forward in the 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 should all focus on ways in which we can achieve a positive outcome and start to leave behind the factors that have divided and embittered us for far too long. Otherwise we will not have a nation to be proud of.