Dunne Peter: Urgent Debates — Government Proposals for Seabed and Foreshore 
Dunne Peter: Urgent Debates — Government Proposals for Seabed and Foreshore 
[Volume:611;Page:8052] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 The debate about the future of New Zealand’s foreshore and seabed is probably one of the most important debates that we will have in this Parliament. It is important for two reasons. The first relates to the particular resolution of the issue before us and is secondary to the second reason—secondary both in order and in importance—which is that the way we address and resolve this issue will say much about the way that we will move ahead as a nation. 
This country stands very much at a crossroads. It is a crossroads forged by this country’s having to look at its history and now to contemplate its future. It seems to me that over the last couple of decades we have become quite adept at looking at our history and drawing every conceivable lesson imaginable from it. But we are far less adept at considering the implications of that history for our future. While the process of fronting up to events in our past that we may not be proud of or that have been divisive or confiscatory has been important it is equally important that we do not now become trapped in a frame of mind to the extent that this country becomes simply about “us” and “them”—whoever “us” and “them” may be. 
There is no future for New Zealand in a nation that is divided. There is no future in this country for a people who feel that different standards apply to different groups—geographic ethnic age-related or whatever those groups are. That is the true significance of this issue. If we accept the proposition now being advanced by the Government by way of a resolution of the issue—a good starting point I think—which is that the foreshore and seabed are depending on the terminology used “the public domain” or the property in that loose sense of us all and that the new concept of “we the people” is becoming important then we need to start to think through the implications of that. 
I reject the comments made by the previous speaker that any attempt to debate these issues openly and fearlessly is somehow engaging in—and I am not sure whether this is the term she used; it was certainly the inference I drew from her speech—racial hysteria or racial division. If we have become so frightened in our country of talking openly about issues that affect us all and the futures of us all then we are in a very sad state. One of the things that have been quite useful as this debate has proceeded over the last few weeks—and I have experienced discussions with a large number of New Zealanders in every walk of life about it—has been the tone of the debate. The tone has not been one of bitterness or of anger; it has been one of sadness. How has this country got itself into this position in which we are on the verge of starting to tear ourselves apart? Part of the reason we are on that verge is that we have been too unwilling for a long period of time to confront these issues for fear of the sort of label that was imposed upon us by the previous speaker. We have to break out of that. Whatever our particular viewpoint we have to break out of the straightjacket that means there are certain taboo subjects we cannot dare venture into for fear of treading upon a racial landmine. That is not the spirit of New Zealand. It is not the way forward and it is not the way that we will resolve this issue. 
Let me come back to the concept of the public domain. As I said I think it is a useful starting point. I say that a little tentatively because that is exactly the way I feel. But the notion that it tries to capture in my view is that every single one of us in this country has some indefinable part of our birthright recognised on the foreshore and seabed. Every single one of us has an equality of right of access to and enjoyment of those particular areas and if that is so then it follows that every single one of us in an indefinable way has a sense of ownership of the foreshore and seabed. We may choose to define ownership in different ways but the reality is there: we all have a stake in their ownership. 
For 163 years that ownership stake has been represented by the entity we know as “the Crown”. In the absence of anything else it is very difficult to move on from there. I accept the point the Deputy Prime Minister makes about the sensitivity of the meaning of that word. That is absolutely true but it does not remove the reality. Things do not exist in a vacuum. There are sensitivities and they need to be addressed recognised and accommodated but they are not accommodated by pretending they are simply not there. 
That is why I come back to the phrase “the public domain”. Maybe what we are starting to do in New Zealand—and I think it will be a good thing if we are—is to recognise that one or two of our concepts are a little outmoded. The irony of referring to the Crown is as my colleague Gordon Copeland points out really that until the late 1980s and the financial reforms underway at that time we did not talk about the Crown. Instead we talked about the public sector—the Public Finance Act and the public balance sheet. Now the notion of “the Crown” has been imposed upon us to try to reflect our statehood. So the notion of “the public domain” “we the people” or “the people of New Zealand” is equally relevant. 
My point about where-to-from-here is that if we are to start down the path that the Government solution proposes we must recognise that whether we call it “the Crown” the “people of New Zealand” or “the public domain” or whatever other term we use we the people—all of us—have a stake in the solution because all of us have a stake in the ownership of the territory that we call New Zealand. I say “ownership” in the broad sense because it does mean different things to different people. If we accept that proposition then I believe we are part of the way towards a solution. But there is still quite a gulf to get over before we even get to that point and I want to bring up a couple of other matters that get in the way of getting there. 
We are talking about providing for the Maori Land Court to give some flesh to the bones of customary title customary use—although that is probably secondary now that the fishing settlement has been made—and customary access. My concern about that is that the absence of a specific definition potentially creates a situation whereby the Maori Land Court ruling in the way that courts do could rule in a way that completely subverts the process we are attempting to undertake by means of the first part of the solution. So when we talk about the public domain we could well find definitions applied by the court to title to use and to access that cut across the concept of the public domain as something indefinable that is held by us all. That is why I say we need to have far more work done on clarifying those definitions—preferably by this Parliament—before we can proceed further down the path that is being embarked upon at present. 
This is the start of a journey. It is an important journey and over the next few weeks New Zealanders of good will from every political flavour and from every other flavour in New Zealand must come together to work for the common good—the common weal which again is a variation of the term “the public domain”. If we do not do so then not only will this issue fester but contrary to the previous speaker’s assertion we will send a message far and wide that the great New Zealand dream shared by all of us—of being a nation in which people of different backgrounds different cultures and different histories can come together and live in peace harmony and common spirit—will have been shattered. That is not the future I want for New Zealand and it is not the future that I can see this country going down.