Peters Winston: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Peters Winston: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16935] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 “A little learning is a dang’rous thing; drink deep or touch not the Pierian Spring”. That member knows nothing about this bill and he demonstrated that with everything he said tonight which would be his leader’s position and the position of his party. In a democracy like ours an issue arises now and again that requires us to put aside our differences and act in the best interests of the nation. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Refute everything I’ve said. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I can refute rebut and debunk everything the member has said. June last year was such an occasion when the Court of Appeal released its ruling on the NgatiApa case regarding the foreshore and seabed. It came from left field and caught all who were involved by surprise. There was a judicial inference that the understandings we always had regarding the ownership of the foreshore and seabed needed greater clarity. The issue seemed straightforward enough. We had all assumed that the Crown owned the foreshore and seabed. But with this in judicial doubt we were required to clarify the issue; and that is what New Zealand First has done from day one. What we have secured is the following: Crown ownership in perpetuity for all New Zealanders; guaranteed public access; customary rights for all New Zealanders regardless of race; one law for all in access to the courts; and certainty particularly in respect of business activities linked to the seabed and foreshore like port companies.  
The issue required a non-partisan approach to clarify what we had assumed to be law. It could have been resolved quickly. Instead many parties in this House chose to play petty politics. They saw it as a chance to promote themselves and to promote different agendas even the legal nonsense of a public domain. If these people thought that the Court of Appeal had made a strange decision in respect of the NgatiApa case just imagine what sort of interpretation a court would have come up with in respect of an alien inappropriate doctrine such as public domain. This had to be stopped and it was stopped.  
We also had some Maori who became obsessed with an aspect of the court’s rulings related to the process of securing customary rights. Some including lawyers who knew better and lawyers should know better helped create the hoax that some people owned the foreshore and seabed because of their ancestry. There is no Maori in this country with a closer connection to the sea than for example myself or Dover Samuels. We and our ancestors have lived smack on the sea for thousands of years. No Maori can contest that so let us put a few facts out there. We must remember that many of those lawyers have been on the treaty gravy train for years. They have been cynical and manipulative and they saw a chance to add to the grievance industry themselves—all division all confusion all disharmony.  
Maori and other New Zealanders deserve better and they have got better. They deserve the truth and they have got it. For a time we were drowned by a media frenzy and all sorts of myths and shibboleths but the truth is now emerging. We have stayed the course on this matter and we have seen off the mischief-makers. The Court of Appeal never did say that Maori owned the seabed and foreshore. It simply said there was a process of procuring customary rights through the Maori Land Court and then it doubted that any such process would ever succeed. Those are the facts—an abbreviated version—and the rest is bunkum. The court never said that Maori owned the seabed and foreshore. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: You’ve got the wrong notes. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: If my party was going through the floor I would keep quiet. In fact I would retire. Oh I am sorry; the member is retiring. This issue needs clarity and there will be clarity. I have a warning for those in the Maori Party who believe that their hoax over the seabed and foreshore will sustain them into the next campaign. There will be no mass dissatisfaction. Maori like all New Zealanders will see they have a stake in the ownership of the foreshore and seabed through the Crown and more important for the first time their customary rights are now secure. That is the truth. That is the reality. I have to say they have New Zealand First to thank for that. The next hikoi will be to the ballot box and we will see who is right and who is wrong.  
But it was not just Maori who were engaged in spreading confusion. We had from the National Party the most confused and the most blatant politicking of them all. Sadly that is one more sign of its weak and confused leadership. Where is the leader—the great debater—on this issue tonight? Where is the man who would bore the Rotary club silly on the issue? Where are the words of wisdom from this new clarion-call leader who calls himself the new voice? There is not a mutter not a murmur not a sound not a syllable—gone. That leadership lives and thrives in a perverse time warp. They believe there is no legitimate place for Maori except as subservient workers for their colonial masters. The tea planter strikes again!  
Tonight in the name of Maoridom Gerry Brownlee rises to put a defence. I feel sorry for Maori if the new white man’s burden becomes a cloak laid on the shoulders of the National Party. National members could have acted in the national interest. They could have done what their name suggests but they have long since stopped believing in anything to do with the nation. They are about short-term opportunist opportunity. In that respect they are unparalleled in this Parliament. Even the ACT party cannot beat them at doing that. The ACT party does not know whether it is Arthur or Martha. They are opposed to this legislation but they are going to join the constitutional conference. I say to them: “Would you guys make up your minds!”.  
The whole country is looking for an alternative Government. We know there is leadership here that is an alternative. We know there is a party that is an alternative. There are only 13 of us. We need more who are prepared to get up and put the issues of the day but not like the National Party and the ACT party. They are hopelessly divided with no idea where they are going. They have no principles and no policy; just objection. Why could the National Party not have done its duty? They said the foreshore and seabed must be in Crown ownership. The bill does all of that. But they will not support it. The National Party stated in its report that customary rights must be protected. The bill does that but they will not support it. Why not? “Beaches for all” was what Don Brash proclaimed. Well they will be—but National will not support it. But at Christmas time this year everybody will know who secured the beaches for all of us in New Zealand. They will remember who did it. The National Party could have been part of the solution but instead it decided to become part of the problem.  
Let me just say this: although we do not see eye to eye with the Government on many many things when there is a threat to our common heritage and our birthright we have to act together just like we do in times of war. Nobody should read any more than that into it. But the issue threatened to shake the foundations of this nation and New Zealand First is proud to have fixed it. We said we would fix it and we have—unlike the rest on my right and my left.  
There is an old Maori saying which I will put in English which epitomises our position: “Not like the seagull tossing and turning its head at every wave but like a rock steadfast against the surging sea”.