Copeland Gordon: General Debates 
Copeland Gordon: General Debates 
[Volume:611;Page:8553] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 On Monday 18 August the Government released its proposals on the foreshore and seabed of New Zealand. That night Helen Clark the Prime Minister was on the  
Holmes 
 show. I happened for once in my life to see that show. During it she announced to the nation over the television that the Government’s proposal was to put the foreshore and seabed into the public domain on the basis that no one would own it. Paul Holmes then asked her the question: “Why on earth are you doing that? Why don’t you just do the straightforward thing and put the ownership of those assets in the Crown?”. I found the Prime Minister’s response to that question extremely interesting. She said that if she were to do that she would be unnecessarily inflaming division in this country because the Maori people would regard ownership being placed in the Crown as a win for the Crown and a loss for Maori—or words to that effect. 
That was an entirely new thought to me as a New Zealander. When the Prime Minister said those words for me—and for a lot of other New Zealanders as well because I heard them the next day on the radio—she introduced a whole new thought into this debate that had not been there previously. I have been reflecting on that and I have come to see that from a Maori perspective there are two parties to the treaty. One of those parties is Maori and the other one is referred to as the Crown. Therefore if the Crown were to assume ownership of the foreshore and seabed then naturally enough as Maori do not see themselves as part of the Crown—in fact they are the other party to the treaty—from their point of view it would be as it were a triumph for the Crown and they would experience a corresponding loss. That was a new perspective for me and it made me start to think and to wonder about why we use the name “the Crown”. Why do we in this country have a system that allocates a whole lot of things to “the Crown”? 
That really raised some questions in my mind. But when I look at the Government’s proposed solution which is to have no one own it but to put it in the public domain I find that it is not very satisfying either. Really deep down in my gut I say “No”. The foreshore and the seabed belong to all of us as citizens of this country. I grew up on the beach in Tasman Bay. I accessed that beach daily. There was nothing between the beach and our property except the Queen’s Chain. It is part of my inheritance too to walk on to that beach and I feel like I own it as much as any other New Zealander does. 
I want to suggest today that we look creatively at a possible way forward in this situation. I have come to this reflection which I would like to share with the House. I wonder whether the foreshore and the seabed could be put under a title that would have in it these words: “We the people of New Zealand as guardians in perpetuity for both ourselves and future generations …”. I have used the word “guardians” because I realise that to Maori the philosophy of kaitiaki is very important and implies guardianship. Indeed those words could be put on the newly issued title in both English and Maori to make it very very clear that this particular title was held by “We the people of New Zealand”. I think that would give this whole debate a very very different perspective. I would be very interested in due course to hear a Maori response to the point I am making because that title would definitely include us—“We the people of New Zealand”—very very clearly in the name on the title to that land. It would be held in perpetuity and we would be guardians of the land for all time and for all future generations of New Zealanders without distinction on the basis of race creed arrival time in New Zealand or any other criteria—the land would be for all of us. It really adopts the system that has been developed in the United States where “We the people” has resonance with every citizen of that country. I think that if we look to the future we could start to take on board a “We the people” concept for New Zealand. 
The difference would be this. “The Crown” as far as I can figure out is just a legal fiction. It certainly does not mean the reigning sovereign of New Zealand. She does not personally own the foreshore and the seabed of this country. So what is this entity that we have christened “the Crown”? Is it not time to think of a new name and a new way of expressing the reality that we are all New Zealanders together? Within that I would strongly say that any customary rights of Maori in terms of use of the foreshore and the seabed that are eventually determined by the— 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.