Beyer Georgina: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Beyer Georgina: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17165] 
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 Maori 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 Maori Act or the ambit of the Maori 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 Maori 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 Maori 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. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call to give my last comments in this debate—comments on clause 2 which relates to what will be the commencement date of this legislation if it passes through its third reading today. Before I do so I offer a few comments of caution to New Zealand First and in particular to Brent Catchpole. He made his last speech with a great euphoric rush of blood to the head in being able to say: “We fixed it.” I say some words of caution: if the member claims credit for fixing it he will not be able to get away from taking responsibility for things if they go wrong. 
This morning there has already been a violent attack upon the Prime Minister’s electorate office. Many in New Zealand hope and pray that that is the extent of what will take place around the country. We condemn that action we believe there is no excuse for it and we urge New Zealanders to show restraint and patience on this issue. But it is an indication of the depth of feeling that exists over this legislation and of the amount of concern about the process. New Zealand First should be very cautious about taking all the credit because the blame in that regard will rest squarely with its members if they do so. 
I suggest the commencement date be postponed to some extent because there is a need—and I again urge the Government to take my suggestion—for communication to go out to the four corners of our country to explain the changes that have occurred in this legislation so that people may get on board with what the legislation is really doing and may not get caught up in all the mistruths and half-truths that have been shared around. 
I also want to make some comments as local government spokesperson for United Future about the effects of this legislation on local government particularly in regard to the new statutory right of access. I think we all welcome the fact that that right is now being enshrined in our statutes but I have some concerns about it. I asked questions in the select committee and I did not get a full response.  
Firstly I hope there is no need for a mad scramble by our local authorities to review their by-laws in regard to access to foreshore and beaches over the summer because of this new statutory right which is much broader than what has been in place or been understood prior to this legislation. I just hope local governments are not suddenly thrown into a flap by having to review their by-laws in order to contain issues that may arise from this new statutory right for all New Zealanders—issues not just of foot access but also of four-wheel drive access and everything else that may flow from that. 
Secondly local authorities will of course have a lot more work to do in order to handle what is coming through in this legislation. I hope they are given time to completely absorb it all and prepare for it. I therefore suggest that a deferment of the commencement would be wise to give the Government an opportunity to take up my suggestions for communication and to give local government some respect as well as an opportunity to get ready to handle this legislation as it comes through. Local authorities were put under incredible pressure when the Prostitution Reform Act was passed and they had to go into a mad flap over by-laws and so on. I hope that will not be the case under this legislation. With that I conclude my comments in this debate which has been robust and enjoyable.