GEORGINA BEYER (Labour-Wairarapa): It is a privilege to take a brief call on the provisions we are debating, which are the title and commencement clauses. I dare say that members will be aware that I have been listening to this debate since it began earlier this week, but I have decided now that I should make my contribution and have it recorded. My prevarications at the very beginning of this process some months back may have had people wondering what I was up to and whether I would change my mind again. The answer is yes to the latter.
This is one of those bills that has sorely tested many, if not all, members of this Parliament. It has altered the landscape of personal relationships, in some respects, between members of this Parliament. I acknowledge that in some instances I, too, have felt that way.
I expressed to my caucus earlier in the year that I wished to abstain on the first reading of the bill. I had reservations then, but I was not quite sure exactly what they were. They revolved around the issue of access to the judicial process that Māori in this instance had pursued—which, of course, ended up in a Court of Appeal decision. I have now accepted that the Government was put between a rock and a hard place on a decision it had to make about fee simple title, particularly regarding the foreshore and seabed, that was not encompassed within Te Ture Whenua Māori Act or the ambit of the Māori Land Court—which could really grant only fee simple title if any grant were to be made at all.
If we are to be a nation that is proud of moving forward like two people but as one, then that has to be practised through important, founding, leading legislation such as this. In my support for this bill, I acknowledge the contributions I have heard so far from all sides of the Chamber—yes, we still have a third reading debate to occur—that outline members’ particular arguments and points of view. But I have to say that it has been absolutely disappointing to hear the shallow, fact-less arguments that have come from the Opposition with regard to this legislation. After 18 months of going through the legislation, one would have thought that although Opposition members claimed they had had only an hour or two to get their heads around the Supplementary Order Papers, etc., they might have come up with more substantial arguments.
I am proud of the Labour Party and its Māori caucus. I am certainly grateful and proud that the Rt Hon Winston Peters and New Zealand First have shown leadership in this debate and in this argument. They have made a decision that will provide greater certainty than we ever would have had if any from other than this Labour Government were sitting on the Treasury benches.
Given the circumstances under which we had to work, the country can be grateful that we have come to what I think is an amicable conclusion in order to bring the country to rest on this important and vital issue. I do not believe, as a Māori, that we will be completely written off, as some in this Committee have purported will be the case. The facts do not stack up when we hear the arguments from this side of Chamber compared with the arguments from the opposite side. We are moving in the right direction. I have only great credit to bestow upon the members of both my caucus and the New Zealand First caucus, who have seen fit to progress this legislation.
It must be noted that the National Opposition has been caught on the back foot. It would have been really good to have heard something from its leader. Unfortunately, we were not privileged to hear that—it was given to the mouthpieces. National members have done an awful job so far of defending their point of view, but I respect that that is all they are capable of. God help us if they return to this side of the Chamber after the next election.
