Foreshore and Seabed Bill

There will be one debate on clauses 1 and 2, but each clause will be voted on separately.

This is the title debate in the Committee stage, and I think the interesting point to be made is that at the end of this stage, the Leader of the House will move to divide the bill to give it two titles: the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 and the Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Act 2004.

I cannot help thinking that those two names are somewhat inadequate in the first case, and quite misleading in the second case. The Foreshore and Seabed Bill should surely be entitled at this stage the “Foreshore and Seabed Alienation Empowerment Bill”, in order to become the Act. Effectively, the bill empowers the Government of the day either to hold in perpetuity or to dispose of, and the whim of the Minister of Conservation, in conjunction with the views of the Minister of Māori Affairs, are what will hold sway at any particular point in this country’s future, if this bill is passed today.

The Government has reserved for itself the right to dispose of foreshore and seabed, at various times and in various ways, and we will talk further about that in the third reading debate. But a title to a bill should indicate very clearly what it does and what it enables. Without question, this bill enables alienation of the foreshore and seabed—ownership of which so many New Zealanders believed should be held by the Crown, and was held by the Crown, post-1840.

The second title referred to is the Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill 2004. I think this is an extremely cynical title, because most people on hearing of an amendment to the Resource Management Act will think the Government has listened to what they are saying, and has decided to deal with some of the less helpful aspects of that Act so that many, many developments and improvements around this country that lead to employment opportunities and, most important, to bigger incomes, can be delivered for those who take the risks to set up such enterprises and activities. But no, this amendment, particularly, will make development in land adjacent to the coastline of this country more difficult in many, many cases.

Yesterday, in the various debates in the Chamber, we heard that an acceptance has developed that over 10 percent of this country’s coastline is likely to come under some sort of reservation status for Māori, to be administered by a new group appointed by Māori, and apparently to look after the customary rights the courts will bestow on Māori. That is an utter nonsense in the first place, because if Māori have customary rights, they already have them. They do not need courts to start telling them what the constraints on those rights are. The interesting thing is that from the time this bill receives the royal assent, the Minister of Māori Affairs, and the Minister of Conservation in particular, will be the Ministers who tell Māori how, when, and where they can exercise those customary rights. It seems to me that that is not much of a right, at all.

I go back to the point made about the title to the Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill. Most people are going to believe that this bill is about the Labour Government finally waking up and realising what a huge brake the Resource Management Act has been on our economy and, more particularly, on the opportunity to raise incomes in this country. Far from that, this bill is just more of the very heavily layered bureaucracy that that Act already puts upon New Zealanders who are trying to do things for the betterment of this country. The bill has an inadequate title, indeed.

I think that speech demonstrated what we have seen throughout this entire debate, which is the shallowness and the confusion in the National Party’s arguments. The member Gerry Brownlee should have been here, perhaps, last night and this morning, when some of his colleagues started to argue that we should allow the current court process to proceed to conclusion. Indeed, Dr Hutchison came perilously close to justifying the violence that occurred overnight, on the basis that the Government provoked it by not allowing that court process to proceed to conclusion. That, of course, would result in the creation of new private title to the foreshore and seabed. That would occur because customary land status granted under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act could then be translated into freehold title by a relatively simple procedure.

The irony is that only two parties in this House support that, for two opposite reasons: the Māori Party, because it believes there would be a lot of customary land status granted, and the ACT party, because it believes there would be very little customary land status granted. The Green Party did not support allowing the current court process to proceed through to conclusion; it was going to block it off in a number of different ways.

Metiria Turei: Oh, rubbish!

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Well, blocking off alienation and blocking off other aspects is to interfere in the current court process. The current court process under Ngāti Apa would lead to the acquisition of alienable private title over the foreshore and seabed, and legislation would be required to overturn and overrule that. If the member has not understood that, she has understood nothing about this issue.

We then have had this repeated nonsense that, somehow or other, we already know that more than 10 percent of the foreshore and seabed will be in foreshore and seabed reserves. Let me emphasise again that the test for territorial customary rights is a high test, as is the common law test. All that this bill does is to codify in statute what the best received expert advice is on what those common law tests should be, so that they are placed beyond doubt. It will now be for the court to decide how that is interpreted.

Ten percent of the foreshore and seabed is owned down to the mean high water spring by Māori under Māori title. It is far from true that that necessarily translates to it having foreshore and seabed reserve status, because there are other tests to be met, including that of exclusive use and occupation. So the member is wrong on that. That is in the bill, it is in the Act, and it is clear that the court has to apply that test of exclusive use and occupation. Indeed, Mr Grant Powell has complained today that the test is too high. The irony is that if the tests were properly applied, those who succeeded in the Ngāti Apa case would have a very low prospect of qualifying, in any case, because they have had continuity interrupted since 1840. That is unlike, say, Ngāti Porou, Whānau-a-Apanui, and people in the north and elsewhere, where that continuity has not been interrupted; they are far more likely to be able to meet some of the tests within this bill.

What the National Party has never managed to explain, having said that customary rights should be recognised, is how they should be recognised. National members have tried to imply that, somehow or other, one can have one’s cake and eat it; that, somehow or other, customary rights can be recognised without our providing for a regime that enables that to be followed through. Of course there is, therefore, some degree of complexity in that respect. The real purpose of their argument throughout has been to create the image that control over the entire foreshore and seabed is being handed over to Māori, and that the current process is just that in drag. That is merely designed to work up Pākehā fears. Indeed, we do not yet know whether the axe that went through Helen Clark’s electorate office came from a disgruntled Pākehā worked up by the National Party, or from a disgruntled Māori worked up by the Māori Party. We have not yet managed to work out whose fingerprints were on the axe, as I understand it, and it is pretty hard to tell from fingerprints whether it was a Māori or a Pākehā who threw it in the first place. Let us not jump to conclusions in that particular respect, because that party as well has been pretty keen to wind up hatred and violence within society around this particular issue.

I congratulate New Zealand First, and, indeed, United Future, although we could not agree in the end. We have all tried to seek a solution to this situation that recognises the rights of all New Zealanders. This party and this Government are proud to be presenting a bill that does that. At the end of the day, people will find that nothing actually changes dramatically compared with where they are at the present time.

I do hope that subsequent speakers will be allowed to speak in as wide ranging a capacity as Dr Cullen just has. I seek the leave of the Committee to have a second turn, given that I stuck so closely to the debate on the title.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Of course speakers will be able to range very widely. It is not only a title debate; it is a wide-ranging debate and, indeed, is a summary of events over the last day or so.

The Government claims in this bill to be protecting the foreshore and seabed on behalf of all New Zealanders. In fact, what we have is a device to alienate the foreshore and seabed.

New Zealand First has failed on two counts. Firstly, it does not have one law for all. Secondly, it has not stopped the Government from transferring title to the foreshore and seabed to settle claims. The extraordinary thing about it is that the Government is perfectly upfront that that is its intent. It intends to transfer the title, just as it transferred Lake Rotorua and the other lakes to Tainui and other claimants. We heard it from the Minister today when he referred to Te Whānau-a-Apanui, Ngāti Porou, Tainui, and so forth. That is the Government’s intent, and New Zealand First is conniving at it. It does not matter what New Zealand First members say. I am sure Mr Peters will say that they have protected the foreshore and seabed on behalf of all New Zealanders. That is completely false. New Zealand First members have betrayed their own principles by voting for the bill, and they will be judged on that fact.

I draw attention to these points. Why is it that they have failed on the grounds of “one law for all”? They have set up a structure of customary rights that are for Māori only. It does not matter what they say about the Auckland anniversary regatta, or anything of that nature. The Minister in the chair, Michael Cullen, knows, because it was stated in the explanatory note of the original bill, that only Māori will get them. That is the belief of the Government. Straight away we have divisive law, not one law for all. Sure, it might be one bill, but that bill has separatist law—law for non-Māori, law for Māori, Māori get customary rights, and everyone else fails because of the date chosen. On that point alone, New Zealand First has fundamentally failed.

The second point, which is in many ways even more serious, is that they are now allowing alienation of the foreshore and seabed in settlements. That is how the Government got the votes of the Māori caucus and, quite likely, that of Nanaia Mahuta as well. A transfer of that title will now be allowed, à la the Rotorua lakes. Members should remember that they have been in Crown ownership for the last 100 years, almost, on behalf of all New Zealanders. The Government’s intent is to transfer the lakes to Te Arawa, and the foreshore and seabed in the West Coast harbours, much of the East Cape and eastern Bay of Plenty, and much of the far north to the Māori claimants. Those are the facts.

We know that even when symbolic transfers take place, the people assert claims. That has already happened. There are problems around Lake Taupō. That is clear in the evidence on the case involving Lake Rotorua. There will be greater problems around Lake Rotorua. We have learnt those lessons, unlike New Zealand First. We intend to have a simple rule, which is that the foreshore and seabed will be in Crown ownership on behalf of all New Zealanders, with no exceptions whatsoever. That is very clear.

I turn to a final point. The National Party specifically sought leave to vote for subsection 3 in relation to Bayswater Marina. We sought leave to do that because we wanted to support it. Do members know what the Government did, in its arrogance? The Government stopped it. That is typical of the whole process of the last 2 days, which included tabling a 67-page document and saying that we should read it over dinner time and then we would know all about it. The media do not get to know. The public do not get to know. The submitters do not get to know. It is typical of the arrogance of the Government.

It is a sad day when we have to conclude the Committee stage of this day, when there are many other members who want calls, by referring to the process. The process has been so deeply flawed that Parliament has been denied a proper debate. How can we have a proper debate when immediately before it starts, a 67-page document is tabled?

The last speaker has been on his feet, with other colleagues, because the leader of their party is incapable of sustaining an argument on the issue any more. [Interruption] I say to Mr Franks that that was my first sentence. The member should show a bit of tolerance. Why is he so sad about it? It is because he is a loser and he is locked into a loser. That is why he is not patient. He will not even hear my first sentence before he starts shouting.

If those members had any argument, then Mr Brash would be here. If they had any substance—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): That is a reference to the non-presence of a member. The member was phrasing it correctly before but—

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Is it appropriate for a member to stand up and directly say to another member of Parliament that he is a loser? It should have been picked up, because comments like that are directed towards the Chair, which is not good, but also I do not think it is good to say that other members are losers. Members have been pulled up in this debate—indeed, one of them was slung out of the Chamber, without any justice whatsoever—for doing far lesser things.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for raising that issue. The member who has the call was getting a little loose.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: How sensitive people have become when they cannot even take that criticism! They rise and seek the Chair’s defence. The National Party has lost all shred—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The Chair must not be brought into this argument.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I rose to defend a much smaller party, not the National Party. If Mr Peters wants to point to the National Party and say “Loser”, that is OK; he would clearly be looking in the mirror and seeing what has happened to him since 1992.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Again I thank the member. It did not even occur to me that he was seeking the defence of the Chair.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We are in danger here, and I really would like a considered opinion on this. I never ever thought I would hear the sensitivities of the National Party being expressed in this way. Are we now to say, as has often been touted by the Labour Government, that there are no winners, no losers, every one is a participant and should be treated fairly and gently, and we should not prick people’s sensitivities? Because debate in this Chamber will be restricted if we go down the National Party line here now.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I would appreciate it if there are no further points of order along those lines, because they are not, in fact, points of order. I was enjoying listening to the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: My point is, though, that the reason why the National Party and ACT party have been so venomous is that what is clearly emerging from this bill and this debate is the fact that there is only one party that has always stood for one law for everybody, and that party is New Zealand First. That is why they have been so bitter, so twisted, and so venomous. Their track record is absolutely contrary to what they say. The idea that they could actually claim this issue, as Dr Brash sought to do in Ōrewa, and ever sustain it was never going to happen, and it is back now where it belongs—it is back home with New Zealand First where it always was. That has always been the case with our party. We were founded on it, unlike that party over here.

I believe that the reality is that when Judge Hingston made a decision that water and land are the same thing, he never ever thought that the Court of Appeal would accept it. He never believed that the Court of Appeal would accept it. The Court of Appeal actually did not accept it. What it said was one can go to the Māori Land Court but one’s chances of winning are virtually nil. So, pray tell me, how did Māori go from that decision to start believing, as some extremists did, that they owned the foreshore and the seabed?

Hon Dover Samuels: Somebody told them that.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I am telling that member this: the media in this country have a lot to answer for because they helped plant that totally extravagant supposition in Māoridom’s ears and in their mind. And they have sustained it all these months, although the Court of Appeal said nothing of the sort. The Court of Appeal could not conceive of any Māori group winning—not just Ngāti Apa. That is a fact.

There was Tariana Turia, out there on a march, saying: “We own the foreshore and the seabed.” Well, let me tell members that we never did, because 170 miles of it was given to us by international treaty. That is what nationhood is about—not making extravagant claims that we cannot sustain, and that, frankly, are embarrassing. It is embarrassing to a people who believe in independence and self-worth—this hugging mentality that somehow we will have conveyed upon us something that does not belong to us. We do not ever bow down, in respect of where we come from, to those Māori who think somehow we are being treacherous. I have never heard so much bunkum in all my life.

But my point to her is this. What is her record when it comes to keeping land? What is her party’s record, her management committee’s record, about selling Māori land? What is it? Because ours is intact. Dover Samuel’s record is intact. She should not criticise us Māori and say we are less Māori than her. She makes extravagant claims that are totally and utterly unsustainable. If we want to be fair about this, we know full well that what is being said by a number of people is utter drivel.

The sad aspect, in particular, is this. I heard people talk about wāhi tapu yesterday as though that issue was of no moment whatsoever. I could not believe it. Who brought Christianity to this country? Who adopted Christianity? The Māori did. And here they are, believing in these traditions and believing that they are important. To have Europeans in this Chamber, such as those from the National Party whom I heard say that, stomping all over a tradition brought here, adopted here, and acclimatised here—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s as broad as a bus; it’s this wide.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, there you go, you see. Like Ninety Mile Beach is a wāhi tapu? That is rubbish.

I sat here last night in amazement. I totally reiterate and support what my tuakana from Ngāti Wai said about the differences amongst us that pervade this land, and that this humbug of trying to ensure there is generic understanding and practice in the sense of tikanga is put asunder by people on the other side there who were talking about white people, forgetting that there were other people, and talking about brown people. This is about all New Zealanders, and the conflict in my mind is the extremes of the rednecked racists and the crazies in here, who are helped along by the press, which is not doing its homework and is chastising us for doing something that is the best thing for Māoridom in a long, long time, and this bill points that out.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt the member’s speech, but he needs to think a little bit carefully about what he is saying. He referred to rednecked racists who are here. I am not a racist and I am certainly not a redneck. I take deep offence at any suggestion that that might be the case.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for raising that. I was just pondering that turn of phrase. Would the member withdraw and apologise.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I apologise. Certainly I am humble enough to withdraw and apologise when I say outrageous things. But I will not stand here and listen to this nonsense of people preaching about tuku-ed whenua, things that we have inherited from our ancestors that are tinged through the history of time in this great country by raupatu, people setting to on us, stealing it, and, most of all, our own people selling it.

We have these extremes going on and on about let us preserve the land. It is at risk out there at the moment. Let me tell members this: the land that is retained the most is within the regulated framework. It has stood the test of time in the sense of local authority interference at times. Certainly, it is about making decisions in contemporary times for our people, and that is right. Being from Ngāti Porou, I support this stance. I am proud of being from there, and not ashamed—as I am proud of being from Ngāi Tahu. My Ngāi Tahu side were here in the depth of the night in 1992 with the Government then in power, and they signed an agreement about fishing in the customary sense. People appear and make believe that this is brand new. Woe betide those who want to keep us in the dungeons of doom and gloom!

We have to make decisions for all New Zealanders. We have to protect that strip of land that is from the high-water mark to the low-water mark. Let us get it right about confiscation. Let us get it right about the black market that our people are involved with at the moment. They are tāhae-ing the kai—stealing it. They are selling it up in Auckland, and for what reason? The cupboard is bare, and I want to defend it. What is important to me? It is that we make sure that our young people can hold on to that journey that we made as young persons. I sit here and listen to all this prattle at the extremes by those who are saying: “We want to leave you there.” Not too long ago, when crayfishing licences were let in this country, our old people told us not to touch them because they were about moni, and kai is tapu. Pākehā have all the crayfishing licences and they live well off them, as a lot have lived well off the fishing quota, and doing everything except helping our people. Who has imbued and encouraged the gravy train? Those people in that party, and those Māori who have done very, very well out of it, and have not cared about pulling it down—those people.

I listen and wonder, when all I can hear in the mainstream media and parts of the Māori media is all this nonsense about taking a position and not caring about the demographic of young Māori in this country. I want young Māori to grow up and understand that they can go to the beach and it is there; that when they wake up tomorrow it will still be there. I know right now of properties with the kōiwi of our tūpuna—the bones of our tūpuna—that have been sold because that whenua is alienated. Let us go back to what the court said, and let us get it into context and understand what was said. If people want to let that happen, kei te pai, but they should not come and tell me, as a Ngāti Porou person, and try to invent this generic niceness all around this country—either other iwi, or Pākehā. Because I am very sure of what needs to happen in our rohe. I am very sure, as the Minister of Māori Affairs, of what I believe is the best position at this time.

We run all these hui, and we run all these wānanga courses, and half of them, in my mind—those in the universities—are a lot of nonsense. We get pūhā; we get diplomas that are not relevant and mean nothing. I say to Mr Brownlee that we should take our kids who are not going to the rocks and teach them about that.

That was an extraordinary contribution from the Minister of Māori Affairs, and it showed just how confusing this legislation is even after 48 hours of debate on it. I want to cover three particular points, because we are no wiser today than we were on Tuesday evening when the 138 pages of bill plus Supplementary Order Paper were tabled without response.

My first point is that Labour Māori caucus members have said to their constituency that the legislation will deliver 10 percent or more of the foreshore and seabed as reserves. That is what they are claiming on the front page of the New Zealand Herald. Either they are telling something different to other New Zealanders—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Who would read that?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, we are actually believing the Labour Māori caucus, and what they say comes as no surprise. I come to Winston Peters. He led a very interesting exchange—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): It is a robust debate. Interjections are welcome, but not of that nature. They will cease now.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The second confusion is this. I asked a very simple question. In relation to the new idea of foreshore reserves, can there be a marine reserve in the same place as a foreshore reserve? Can there be an aquaculture marine area? Nanaia Mahuta from the Labour Party told us yes. I shall read the transcript. I asked the question: “Can there be a marine reserve and a foreshore reserve in the same area?”. Winston Peters said—and I shall quote from Hansard—“Of course not.” That is what he said yesterday. That is what Hansard states in black and white. He went even further. He said I was a fool and an idiot to suggest that they can be in the same area. Yet Nanaia Mahuta has told us the opposite. The man who takes credit for the legislation, who says he has been intricately involved in the drafting of it, says a foreshore and seabed reserve cannot be in the same place as a marine reserve.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the trustees agree.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Today he says if the trustees agree. Well, that is not what he said yesterday. He should read his Hansard. He has no damn idea of the legislation that he has spoken of.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Surely, you cannot allow that member to get away with what he has just done. We know that he is frenetic and sort of hectic, but he cannot get away with throwing papers at another member. I reckon that it is about time his whip got him under control.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for raising that. That did happen. The paper was partly passed and partly thrown.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yesterday he said exactly the opposite. Any member who reads Hansard will know that that member said one thing yesterday and something different today.

We then come to the issue of wāhi tapu. Members on this side respect the fact that there are burial grounds and other customary rights that need to be recognised. However, this legislation has provisions that are so broad and so wide-ranging that any old thing will get by. We already know that wāhi tapu, under the definition that is provided, are any areas that are of spiritual significance to Māori—and I tell Mr Samuels that there are Māori who have said that Ninety Mile Beach is of spiritual significance; they have claimed that—and that will be determined by the Māori Land Court. Dail Jones gave an extraordinary speech in the Committee stage about the Māori Land Court. Basically, he told the Committee that we should have no confidence in its capacity to make fair judgments on those very issues. The significance of that is this: those wāhi tapu provisions will see ordinary New Zealanders excluded from those areas of foreshore and seabed.

So after 2 days of debate, under this appalling process whereby 138 pages of law have been dumped on this Committee, we still do not know for sure what we are passing. We still do not know. One person is saying one thing and another person is saying another thing, in respect of how many areas will be foreshore reserves. It is a completely new concept. I am pretty sure that, before Tuesday, no New Zealander, council, or anybody had even heard of the idea of foreshore and seabed reserves, and the Government will make them law today. The Labour Māori caucus is saying that they will apply to over 10 percent of foreshore and seabed—4 million hectares. I ask Margaret Wilson whether the Labour Māori caucus is correct in saying that they will cover 10-plus percent. The Minister is absolutely silent. New Zealanders have been told on the front page of the New Zealand Herald that the Labour Māori caucus is claiming that 10-plus percent will be set aside for foreshore reserves. The Labour Māori caucus knows, but Margaret Wilson does not.

We need answers to those sorts of basic questions, and the reason National is opposed to this law is that it is a political con job. It is a political con job that completely fails to provide the sort of framework for all New Zealanders that will ensure our foreshore and seabed are properly managed. We are creating an array of new legal mechanisms that will create confusion and provide a field day for lawyers, and the worst thing is that our foreshore and seabed will not be properly managed as a consequence. It is confusing, contradictory, and an absolute mess. I look forward to the next National Government fixing up this mess, so that we can have foreshore and seabed legislation of which we can be proud.

The title of the bill is very bland and boring. It does not actually tell us what this bill does, at all. Over the last day or so it has been very clearly outlined that this bill is about taking. It is about stealing. It has nothing to do with public access. We have seen that, because public access rights are taken away by this bill. It has nothing to do with the protection of the foreshore and seabed from sale. Because of this legislation, freehold titles are still able to be issued for a period. New Zealand First’s refusal to support my entrenchment clause has meant that it will remain an option to continue to sell the foreshore and seabed to foreign ownership. It is not committed to keeping New Zealand land in New Zealand hands, let alone Māori land in Māori hands.

The Minister of Māori Affairs stood in this House and blamed Māori for the loss of their own lands. He stood here and said that it is Māori’s fault that they do not have their land any more. He has denied the history of confiscation in this country, denied the history of legislation that has come out of this House—from which this bill is a direct descendant—and blamed us for the land that was stolen from us. Let us call this bill the “Government Says ‘We Are The Champions’ Bill”, because it has won. It has taken away from citizens of this country the right to go to court. Every person in this country must realise that this is the first step to the abolition of his or her civil rights. Is this what this country wants—a Government that will take away the right of its citizens to go to court because it does not like the outcome of the court decision? Is that what this country wants? No, it is not.

How about we call the bill the “Ha Ha, You Lose, We Win, Bill?”. Again, it is not about protecting public rights, but about taking land because the Government wants complete control of the resources. How about calling it the “Tough Titty, You Māoris Bill”? Māori will lose and lose under this. Nothing in this bill will give them anything. The customary rights orders have been so tightened that they will virtually be impossible to get. Only two or three iwi in the whole country will be able to get a territorial customary rights order, because New Zealand First has put in place provisions that will make it impossible for them to get. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The Minister has had his say. Please allow Metiria Turei to have hers.

METIRIA TUREI: The rhetoric contained in the bill is a disgrace. As parliamentarians and lawmakers we need to be committed to making good law that actually means something. This whole House knows that the provisions that New Zealand First has put in about going to the High Court, for various interested groups, mean nothing. It is a deception. It will cheat New Zealanders, because they will believe that they have a right in law that, in fact, they do not have. They will waste their money trying to see those rights achieved in law. They will discover that their efforts have been purposeless and worthless, because New Zealand First wants to make a symbolic point that will render New Zealanders without rights. Is that the kind of law that we as parliamentarians want to enact? Is that the kind of law that New Zealanders want to see on their law books? No, it is not.

New Zealanders are crying out for just laws that restore justice in our country, protect the rights of all citizens, protect the rights to keep New Zealand land in New Zealand hands, and protect the rights of Māori to go to the courts, just like every other citizen. Yet very shortly this morning the House will pass a law that will strip away those rights. This Parliament will be in disgrace if we continue to proceed with this bill. But at this moment we are still in a position not to proceed with it. We can take another course. Right now thousands of New Zealanders are out there asking us to do something else—put this on hold and take another path. An unjust law is not in their best interests. They do not want to see the divisiveness that this legislation will permeate through their community.

I want to say to 99.9 percent of all New Zealanders in this country that at Christmas they can go down to the beach with their family, with their children, have a barbecue, have a hāngi, and go fishing. It was amazing to hear a speaker from the ACT party say that when she goes down to the beach with her kids they might be stopped by wardens, and if they do not leave they might be fined. Let me give her some advice. She should take the kids down to the beach, take suntan oil and do the “slip, slop, slap” so they do not get sunburnt, lie on the beach, have a good time, and build sandcastles. But my advice is: do not go down on the bulldozer, because fisheries officers will be there and wardens will be there to make sure that people use the beach appropriately, for the benefit of all New Zealanders, including Māori.

I heard of a statement made by somebody who sits opposite: “I will oppose this bill with every fibre of my body.” Who said that? I am still trying to identify who said that. But that person has been an apparition—has not been seen, has not turned up here. [Interruption] I am just saying that is what I heard from a person who sits across the other side of the Chamber: “I will oppose the bill with every fibre in my body.” Today we have seen the National Party roll out the dead—a few have come out of the deep freeze. Today they say they will oppose this bill. The reason why they oppose this bill is quite clear—and one thing about the National Party is that they tell the truth, they are clear, they tell the facts. The reason why they oppose the bill is that it provides customary rights for Māori in this country. That is why the National Party opposes the bill.

I turn to the title of this bill. In 1993 the House passed Te Ture Whenua Māori Act, and the National Party was the Government. I wonder why the National Government did not think perhaps about the implications of a Court of Appeal decision in terms of the jurisdiction of the Māori Land Court?

Gerry Brownlee: Why didn’t Māori think about it?

Hon DOVER SAMUELS: Why did the National Government not think about it? The outcome is a sham. That legislation of 1993 empowered the Māori Land Court—and the National Party was the Government. They never ever mentioned anything; never dreamt about the foreshore and seabed. Yet we have a Court of Appeal. There no Māori on that court; no Māori amongst those high-flying judges. They are all Pākehā, and they determined that in fact the Māori Land Court has the jurisdiction to hear applications not just about land but the foreshore, the seabed, under the water, out to the 12-mile continental shelf. What an absolute sham!

I am saying that if the Parliament had decided that the Māori Land Court should have jurisdiction, then it would have titled the legislation of 1993 the “Māori Ture Whenua (Foreshore, Seabed and Land) Act”. But it did not, and here we are, back here today, listening to the claptrap from the other side of the Chamber, from members of a previous Government that was responsible for promoting that Act.

I have a vested interest, a conflict of interest, in this foreshore and seabed legislation. I want to say that before Rodney Hide or the ACT party start frothing at the mouth about it. I am a member of the hapū Ngāti Wai, like my whanaunga the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Ngāti Wai people are actually by the sea—generations and generations of our tupuna. We have never been accorded any rights or recognition in terms of our customary rights, whatsoever. Today I am proud to stand with my colleagues, and my Māori colleagues on the other side, to give recognition to the customary rights that our people have had for generations and generations.

I say to our people that if they do not want to pick up that opportunity, they do not have to. If they do not want to go to the Māori Land Court or the High Court they do not have to. This Government is not going to take them around the neck and force them to go to the Māori Land Court or the High Court. But that is their option. They have the option to codify their rights in the law. So when the local councils come along with some extraordinary or unusual development project, our people can say: “Hang on. This is crossing and transgressing the customary rights of our people.” Is that not fair? The lunatics—the people who have been smoking too much puha and are hallucinating—say they represent Māori.

I have been in the Chamber now for 3 hours in total since last night, and this is my first call. This bill is being rammed through. The title should not be “Seabed and Foreshore” it should be the “Beach Trolls Empowerment Bill”. Dover Samuels just mocked the idea that there would be fees, and that wardens would be enforcing fees. I tell Mr Samuels that the Spirit of New Zealand trust that takes kids on sail training all around the country has had to drop Mayor Island off its agenda, because every time the kids wanted to swim ashore from the boat, beach trolls emerged from the rocks and tried to charge every one of them a fee, and the trust could not afford it. What is the Government going to do about that? That is the sort of thing that these beach wardens will be doing. This is formalising kaitiaki-ship—although no one knows what that means—

Hon Member: Guardianship.

STEPHEN FRANKS: Guardianship? No, guarding the koha. That is what it is all about. This bill is just a grab for power from a Government that is willing to give it, by setting up a false form of ownership where the real control goes to a race-selected minority. This is absolutely a dishonest piece of law. We are opposing this, somewhat to the surprise of many decent members of ACT, National, and other parties, because they have a view that the Government must be doing something right, if Māori are jumping up and down so much. That is the only way they can judge it, because there has been no truthful information about this bill for months. There has been nothing. This bill comes back, full of new clauses, and we are told we have an hour and a half to read it. No wonder New Zealanders can judge only on the basis that Māori are jumping up and down, and Tariana Turia does not like it!

What it has actually done is very simple: it has taken the beaches from the control of local communities and local authorities and vested it in the Minister of Conservation. It is telling Māori that they can then front up and ask for guardianship rights in respect of customary activities that the bill does not define. It pretends to say that it does not cover spiritualism, and then does. So there will be taniwha around every headland, because it will be in the interests of people to invent them. Because it also expressly provides that when people want to do something on their beaches, when they want to do something with a piece of coastline, they can get the Māori people’s deeply, deeply felt love for customary activity waived—as long as Māori sign the application to the court, it can be waived. There is money in this, but it is only negative. It puts Māori in a position of being always negative.

There is no real property right under this bill. If this bill were really conferring proper property rights, Māori could be positive about it. They would be looking to see the useful things they would be doing with this land. Instead, the only value they can extract is by being a pain in the neck to their neighbours. The only value they can extract is through extortion payments—through holding to ransom and then signing the application to the court. Then the court can accept that the customary activity is not being infringed.

This bill also exempts these areas under guardianship from the provisions of the Resource Management Act—the only justifiable provisions in the Resource Management Act. These are the ones that say we cannot pollute, and we cannot trash the flora and fauna. The Act exempts them from that. There is no explanation from the Ministers as to why there should be an exemption from the 10 most critical sections of the Resource Management Act. It is obvious. What was done here is a set of trade-offs. They were not going to provide real property rights to Māori, on the very small areas that the courts would have found they were entitled to. Instead, they create this shared management—and no man can serve two masters happily—across all of New Zealand potentially. We are aware from what the Māori caucus members themselves are saying, it is at least 10 percent.

This bill will live with as much infamy in New Zealanders’ memories in 10 years’ time as section 9 of the State Owned Enterprises Act. This deal has been trumpeted as simply the status quo. That is what David Lange told his Cabinet colleagues in 1986-87: “This is just the status quo; it does not mean anything.” This bill means a great deal. This is an entrenchment of racism in this country. There is nothing to justify the creation of these rights, other than ethnic inheritance.

It would be well to remind us all what New Zealand First stands for, in respect of this bill. I want, therefore, to speak to the short title and to the amendments. Just to reiterate, we began with Crown ownership as a guaranteed component. We talked about guaranteed access, customary rights for all New Zealanders, and one law for all, under the legal process. That is where we stood in June, and we stand there today.

We hear some of the imagined posturings around the House, and I am very sorry to say that the Green member seems somehow to be grounded in urban grievances of about 50 years ago. That member has no understanding of those of us who have a conflict of interest because we have been coastal dwellers, along with many other thousands of Māori and Pākehā New Zealanders. We understand exactly what the foreshore is. We understand the seabed, and we also understand the legal process implicit in this bill.

That brings me to the second point. Last night, and today by implication, there seems to be some ability in this Chamber to go all around in a wide-ranging debate and forget what the amendments and the bill stand for. Let us look at it very, very quickly. Part 2 concerns the Resource Management Act, and on matters of national importance we have already heard an allusion last night, and again today, to the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with the ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu, and other taonga. That is the law now, and what will be added to that law is the protection of recognised customary activities, forming an addition to Part 6, but one that is for all. Therefore, Māori, and New Zealanders of European and other backgrounds, will benefit from that inclusion.

Secondly, in respect of this particular matter, there was misunderstanding last night, either deliberate or unknown, as to where Part 2 stands. All these items are of national importance, and all of them are ranked equally. All of them would be valued for themselves in any jurisdiction or any consent hearing. After proper weighting had been given to the value, then and then only would the jurisdiction hearing an application, at the ground level as it were, start to assign due consideration to it. That is one law for all, and all are equally matters of national importance.

Last night I heard comment made that suggested very strongly that this new addition was somehow outstanding and was going to have prior importance. That is just not so, and anyone here who understands case law and has been involved in any consent hearing knows exactly what is true.

The third matter I wish to turn to is that of veto. It was much discussed in the course of the earlier debate. I reiterate that no veto was implicit or expressed in the language of this amendment to the bill—none at all. In actual fact, as I said last night, any consent hearing or any body, must have regard to this suite of guidance, these very clear criteria, step by step, that affect the area—the actual history of it, the alternative, which are all part of such a discussion—and in the end, after all of those carefully delineated steps in the criteria, if there is no significant adverse effect, then and then only will the consent body make the decision. There is no veto there, just a proper and normal legal process.

The last thing I want to say concerns those bodies that came to the select committee and expressed their concerns, quite rightly—and I am talking about the utility groups and the various other concerns of groups such as Transpower and the port companies. Despite the comments made by National Party members last night, their certainty and their rights to perform are absolutely guaranteed in these amendments and in this bill. They are there. If members wish to read carefully the constructions placed there, they will see just that.

We should be able to go out of this Chamber at the end of the day and assure all of those groups that normal business is as it was yesterday, and as it will be tomorrow, and that up until the point of the commencement of this Act all the rights that had accrued and all the developments that had been properly processed and the procedures adhered to will take place—there is no limitation whatsoever. On behalf of New Zealand First, I am pleased to be able to stand and support again this part of the bill.

We have come to the final part of the Committee stage debate, and I am pleased finally to get to a part that United Future can support. We will agree that the title, “Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004”, is a good one and we will be happy to vote for it. But up until this point, as we have been going through the debate, there has not been a single part that we have been able to support entirely, because there are still many things that ought to be addressed in this legislation. We have, however, supported the Minister’s amendments throughout this process because we are engaged constructively in trying to make this bad bill a better bill. We are of the opinion that these amendments are accomplishing that.

Winston Peters may be able to travel around New Zealand and claim that he has fixed it and that everything is now OK, but we would not take that opinion. He will try to take all the credit for all of these amendments, but many of them were discussed by the select committee in its deliberation and consideration, and there are more than just New Zealand First that can claim credit for this. Winston Peters’ response to all the legitimate questions that people have around New Zealand is that we should trust him. He is the white knight in shining armour who will solve all our problems, if we will just trust him.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What’s your poll?

LARRY BALDOCK: I say to Mr Peters that I am afraid that when we look at his recent polls at 5 percent he has to understand that he has a long way to go before a majority of New Zealanders will trust him again. United Future has been involved in a constructive engaged process to try to make this bill the best it can be, and we have been listening to the concerns of submitters throughout this process. We have not supported any other parts in this legislation so far, and I will give members a quick summary of the reasons. Part 1—the discussion surrounding public domain versus sole Crown ownership—meant that we could not support that part. Part 2 concerns the issues around the entrenchment of clause 12(2)(b), which we hoped this Parliament would do in response to the concerns about the future alienation of the foreshore and seabed.

Part 3 is concerned with the applications for cancellation of a customary rights order. It is certainly not clear enough, nor prohibitive enough, to protect Māori from losing their interests in that regard. Regarding Part 4—it is a complete sham to try to make out as though anyone other than Māori could get a customary rights order, and we had a robust debate about that last night.

In Part 5 there are the issues around putting it into the matters of national significance, and there is also clause 100, which contains the crazy idea that once one reclaims some land and turns it into dry land, one cannot ever get title to it. In Part 6 there are the issues around clause 112. There is still insufficient transparency about the deals that will go on between the Government and applicants. Clause 2 is another reason we cannot support it. We support the title issue but unfortunately we will not be able to support clause 2 in terms of the commencement date for this legislation, because there is a problem with it, and I will address the rest of my comments to that.

Because most of this legislation will come into effect on the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent, there will not be sufficient time for many people around New Zealand to approach the Minister of Conservation, as is set out in section 355AA(2)(b), in new clause 100A, in order to get a written agreement with an applicant to vest a right, title, or interest in the relevant land. I imagine that the Minister of Conservation’s mailbox will be chock-a-block in the next couple of days as port authorities and people like the Wellington Reclamation Society, the Waterfront Society, and others seek to get a written agreement with the Minister of Conservation so that they may be able to get fee-simple title to the land they have paid for to get reclaimed, which is going to be prohibited to them unless they have already got this written agreement.

So I believe that the commencement date should be extended at least a couple of months to enable that process to occur. For that reason we will not be able to support the current commencement date, which will probably be today or tomorrow after this bill is rushed through Parliament under urgency. The continued concerns we have expressed over the process of this legislation and the need for urgency this week has never been justified, and the people of New Zealand ought to have been able to contemplate the massive number of amendments proposed in this legislation while they sat on the beach, all through the summer. It would have been a great setting for further discussion and consultation on the beach, under their umbrellas, with their suntan lotion on. Therefore, we could have resolved it.

I am delighted to have this chance to speak, particularly when Ngahiwi Tomoana, the chief executive officer of Ngāti Kahungunu, is in the Chamber. Ngāti Kahungunu, of course, have responsibility for a huge part of New Zealand’s coastline, and this bill affects very much tribal Māori in my electorate and its environs.

I want to discuss the title of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. That title, of course, is a code. The real title should be the “Property Rights Recognition Regime Bill”, but if it were called that, we would not know what property rights we were talking about. So it has to be boiled down to foreshore and seabed property rights, because this bill is entirely concerned with a property rights regime relating to the foreshore and seabed.

I find it surprising that ACT is critical of that property rights regime, and even criticises the wāhi tapu aspects, because in the report of the select committee ACT described the sanctity of property rights. Of course, sanctity is holiness. It is a spiritual concept, so ACT must therefore endorse the wāhi tapu aspects of this bill, which has exactly those aspects. But logic has never been part of ACT philosophy.

Logic has also evaded all the speeches from National members, particularly when they resort to that fatuous label of racism. The use of that term shows either their inability to read the bill and understand its concepts, or a basic dishonesty in the way they approach their arguments.

The characteristic of property is that there is a degree of exclusivity—a degree of ownership and control. What are the property right regimes in this bill? The property rights characteristics are that the rights must have been in existence in 1840. There is some exclusivity. They must have been in continuous existence and have been controlled by the same group since 1840, and they must have continued in that way to the present time. That is the determination of the property right.

Because that right may apply more to Māori than Pākehā, or only to Māori and not to Pākehā—no one can say which—it does not make it racist. It makes it no more racist than to say that the children of the rich who fund the coffers of some of the parties in this House are not entitled to that money because they inherited it. The elitism that comes by the old-school network in this country, and that is perpetuated by the bandwagons it pushes, is no worse than the property rights Māori are entitled to because they were here and exercised those rights from pre-1840 to the present time.

Property rights are colourless. Property rights are not morally bound. Property rights are not determined by the colour of one’s skin, one’s secular orientation, or even one’s gender. Property rights are neutral on all those issues. The fact that some people qualify for property rights over others is part of the sanctity of property rights that ACT proclaims, and in that respect this bill and ACT have something in common, and ACT still has time to recognise that publicly in this Chamber.

We have heard from the Green Party, and we have heard some interjections from the Māori Party—and I must say “interjections” because that party has refused to take calls to explain its position on this bill. It claims that this is confiscation, but it cannot be confiscation if it is codification of an existing property right. I think the argument that it is confiscation goes one step back and says: “Ah! We had rights once to property, which have now gone. This Act does not now deliver on them, therefore it is confiscation.”

The Māori Party is really saying that this bill should include a grievance process such as in the Waitangi Tribunal. Well, the bill does make reference to that, because it states that it does not interfere with any rights to claim under the Treaty of Waitangi through the Waitangi Tribunal. So any rights that are no longer in existence today but will be in existence tomorrow and were valid once, become a matter of grievance claim under the Treaty of Waitangi. There is no confiscation. The words codification and confiscation have similarity only in the first two letters. Other than that, they are different concepts and have different uses. To confuse codification with confiscation is at best laziness, and at worst a lack of candour.

I want to talk about Mr Nick Smith’s hysterical contribution to this debate. Someone said he does not need a judge, he needs a doctor, but I am not sure—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The member will withdraw that remark.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER: I withdraw. It seems to me that if the man would take some method to calm down and consider the concepts, then he would realise that Part 17 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act is what is reflected in the reserve provisions in this bill. It is a well-established regime.

I shudder to think what New Zealanders are thinking about Parliament this morning. They look to this place for leadership, and I guess they just keep on looking—they will always keep on looking. In my view, leadership has not been demonstrated by this minority Government, not in the way it has put this whole process together and not in terms of the substance of the bill. This bill sets up a hoax. It is a cruel hoax. It promises everything to everybody, then sets up a convoluted framework that will have people involved in judicial processes that will go on and on. At the end of the process, the expectations that have been raised for all New Zealanders will surely not be realised. That is why I say it is not leadership.

The main bill is called the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. It should be called—

Hon Dover Samuels: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek leave for the leader of the National Party to take a call.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No, I do not want any points of order along those lines. That was actually out of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek leave to take a call on behalf of the leader of the National Party. That is in order. It is!

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I know that the member’s comment is closer to being in order, but I really do not want to hear any more points of order along those lines. [Interruption] I am not giving an actual warning, but it will be pretty sudden when I do. I do not want to hear such points of order.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. There have been two points of order that were totally out of order. Georgina te Heuheu should have her time from the beginning of her speech.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I accept that, and I am well aware of it. She will have ample time.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: Mr Samuels has just demonstrated the kind of lack of leadership I was referring to.

This bill is a hoax. On the one hand, Winston Peters says to Māori: “Don’t worry, your mana”—I am not sure how he sees that, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt—“will be upheld.” Gosh, he should tell that to all those Māori who are already planning to disrupt things this Christmas. On the other hand, he says to all New Zealanders: “Don’t you worry. Your access to the beaches will be unimpeded, because this foreshore and seabed will be in Crown ownership in perpetuity, for your benefit, forever and a day.” Clearly, that is not true. He was wanting to be able to talk in that way before we knew that Nanaia Mahuta was going to support the bill, anyway. Whereas Winston Peters kept saying that New Zealand First would fix it, in the end his support probably was not required.

This is all politics, and we should not deny that. Politics have ruled this whole process, and this bill, since the Court of Appeal decision last year. A more appropriate title for Dr Cullen’s monument—this will be his monument, no doubt; a bit of a cruel monument, his epitaph—would be the “Foreshore and Seabed (‘We won. You lost. Eat that!’) Bill”, because that is how he is treating New Zealanders in the bill he is presenting to Parliament and overseeing the passing of into law today. Shame on him!

I am pleased that the Hon Dover Samuels can stand and give such confident assurance to New Zealanders: “Don’t worry. This Christmas you can go down to the beach, take your slip-slop”—or whatever he said—“and your barbie. Everything is OK.” There is a report out this morning that Anaru Kira of Ngāti Kura plans to block Dover Samuels’ own beach in Matauri Bay, so that when he goes home, either today or tomorrow, he will somehow have to find access to his own beach. If that is a warning of things to come, then this bill has failed badly in what it purports to do.

I refer to the contribution from the Minister of Māori Affairs, because he is the leading Māori. He holds the highest position on behalf of Māori, and somewhere in his speech I think I was able to pick out one or two things. I could not understand most of it, but I think he was alluding to the fact that all our young and bright Māori are developing and coming through. That is the one thing I do agree with him on. I do not know that there was much leadership shown there. However, that is what we are stuck with.

I say again to Māori people: “Don’t get angry! Don’t give them the benefit of seeing you get angry.” There is no point in that for our young people. I want young Māori in our schools and colleges to take hope, because there is a whole side of Māori activity that is never talked about or proclaimed. I congratulate the entrepreneurs, particularly Māori women in business and young Māori in business. I congratulate the Federation of Māori Authorities, which oversees over a thousand economic entities, some of them significant undertakings in managing multimillion dollar assets and in contributing to our economy. Members can see in this morning’s Dominion Post, if they have not already seen it, a picture of a whole group of people having lunch on the side of Lake Taupō in a huge glasshouse. That trust, the Tuaropaki Trust, generates power and contributes to the national grid by supplying power to 30,000 users. That is where Māori are at.

It is with some pride that I stand here. However, there will be people who disagree with that position. I want to explore further the quotation that Dover Samuels used. This is what was said by Dr Brash in his interview with Paul Holmes: “We will oppose it with every fibre of our being.”—nā, katū kaha mai te tangata; with every fibre of our being. I want to explore further the fact that this Parliament was denied that extraordinary experience and spectacle—because it did not happen. We did not see that “fibre”; we did not see the tū kaha o te tāngata. We saw nothing. Although that sounds hugely Churchillian, at least Sir Winston Churchill, that great statesman of the 20th century, stood on the beaches and fought. Maybe that is a classic example for the Leader of the Opposition, who denied us the opportunity to see that incredible spectacle.

The other unusual thing was what we heard from the honourable member Wayne Mapp yesterday, when he said he believes in what he reads in the newspaper. What an astounding public announcement that was to make in this Chamber! How could he do that? Why does he take the New Zealand Herald as the basis for his belief? Māori are criticised because they have a spiritual belief, long held over many generations, yet there is Wayne Mapp, saying he believes in what he reads in the newspaper. That is astounding.

Another thing that I heard last night refers to wāhi tapu. It came from the member for Coromandel. I cannot quote it exactly, but this is what it meant. In a sense, the member said that she would not tolerate any customary value other than what was imposed on her. Yet Māori have a whole history of being imposed on. What this bill does is to recognise the customary rights and usages of Māori—as we should do. How can someone come from Coromandel and have that kind of attitude? If we are to talk about this bill being racist, what do we have a demonstration of in that comment?

Another point came from the Hon Dr Nick Smith. He had something to say about wāhi tapu. There are degrees of wāhi tapu, for sure. If he is talking about the Wakapuaka taiāpure estuary, then he should know he is the person who generated all the opposition to it. On that estuary there is a wāhi tapu, and it is an urupā. I have been led to respect non-Māori wāhi tapu like churches, museums, or whatever non-Māori see as significant. We have been brought up to respect those places, so I would not drive my four-wheel drive vehicle over a non-Māori cemetery just in order to get to the beach. How can the provisions that we are making in our bill be racist?

This bill is not about land; it is about the foreshore and seabed. It is not about people throwing toys out of cots, or about political point-scoring. It is not about taking emotive positions that are not based on the facts of the matter. As a member of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee, I was appalled at one of the submitters, a young person who gave us a co-submission in which she said categorically that she would not be able to go to the beach to get kai for her koro and kuia. How can the Opposition be responsible for transmitting a message of that nature? How can it do that? That is totally immoral. I have to ask where that comes from, in terms of propaganda and misinformation. How can that be so? New Zealand First and this Government are accused on the one hand of alienating the foreshore and seabed, and on the other hand of stealing them. We are not stealing the foreshore and seabed.

We, of course, have seen all this before. That is why we believe that this bill should be called the “Just One More Rip-off in a Long History of Them Bill”. The tragedy is that this mean-minded approach was unnecessary, and is unnecessarily destructive. There is a simple solution to this issue, and the Greens have been saying that from the beginning. It is to allow Māori to proceed to the court—allow their customary property rights to be recognised, and allow them due process—but to amend Te Ture Whenua Maori Act to allow customary rights to be recognised without a transfer to fee simple title, and to require negotiation over rights of reasonable public access. In that way we could recognise mana whenua, guarantee public access, and meet the needs of all New Zealanders. I would be more confident that public access would remain, and that the foreshore and seabed would remain in New Zealand hands, if it is left in Māori collective ownership rather than in the hands of the Crown. We only have to remember the fourth Labour Government to know what happens to national assets that are left in the hands of the Crown. We all know what is going on.

Russell Fairbrother told us that this legislation is not a land confiscation, and that it is just a codification of customary rights. I believe that the member was being duplicitous when he said that, because it is pretty obvious that a whole heap of Māori land was stolen by the use of “legal codification” in the past. That loss of Māori land is not, and cannot be, rectified by tossing the tangata whenua a few crumbs. Dover Samuels said that if Parliament had intended the Māori Land Court to look at the foreshore and seabed, it would have called Te Ture Whenua Maori Act the “Te Ture Whenua Māori Foreshore and Seabed Act”. But I am surprised that the member seems to have the view that only those rights defined by the Crown are legitimate rights. I would not have thought that the member would take that kind of view. I would have thought he would recognise that one of the important points of the Court of Appeal decision was its recognition of customary rights that pre-existed the assertion of the right of governorship by the Crown.

Russell Fairbrother also said that property rights should not be determined by the colour of one’s skin, and other things. That is quite right. What we are talking about is property rights that are determined by kinship. We all recognise that. I have a right to inherit property that my parents leave to me, and that is a property right determined by kinship. We are talking about a similar kind of thing, but this bill removes property rights on the basis of ethnicity. As the Hon Richard Prebble and other members of this Committee have said, this bill removes property rights from Māori on the basis that they are Māori. It takes away customary property rights under common law, but it leaves untouched property rights under the Torrens fee simple title system, which pertains to land owned by Pākehā and others. So, as has been said, this is a racist law. It is specifically designed to target Māori and no other people.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Rubbish!

NANDOR TANCZOS: Of course it is. This is really about the inability of the Crown to deal with the concept of collective ownership based not on Crown grant but on tikanga Māori.

It is curious that other countries seem to be able to deal with that issue. Canada has jurisprudence around indigenous forms of collective ownership, but in this country we seem to be simply incapable of dealing with the issue because the Crown is absolutely paranoid about losing control and power. Exactly the same desire to maintain control has been behind the Government’s attacks on the Supreme Court. We saw the comments by Trevor Mallard that were reported in the newspaper today, criticising the merit of the judges who sit on the Supreme Court. I think that the Court of Appeal decision on the case that resulted in this legislation, made when those same judges were on the Court of Appeal, is exactly what is behind those comments. We have the courts making decisions that are uncomfortable and inconvenient for the Government. The only recourse that the Government has is to attack their credibility—to undermine the courts, and to question their merit and competence. That behaviour is totally opposed to the conventions we have on the separation of powers. It is totally unacceptable. The Government needs to have a good, hard look at itself.

I rise to take a call on the title of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. This is a bill that vests the foreshore and seabed in the Crown in order to give all New Zealanders the right of access to the foreshore and seabed. It is clearly a means of protecting the rights of all New Zealanders. New Zealand First has shown leadership and strength on this issue, and I must congratulate my colleague Dail Jones on that. He has done a lot of work and spent many, many hours, through to midnight and beyond, working on it. New Zealand First has ensured that there is one law for all New Zealanders, and that everyone in New Zealand has the right of access to the foreshore and seabed. It is in Crown ownership for that very reason.

I have sat in the Chamber and listened to National Party and ACT members waffle and dribble on about what is wrong with this bill. There have been desperate attempts by them to try to discredit it. But every time that those members have stood up, they have illustrated that they do not understand this bill. They have got up and tried to discredit it simply because they do not understand it. How many times over the 48 hours that we have been debating this bill has the bill been described to them in one-syllable words? And yet they still do not understand it; they have not been able to get to grips with it. I would like to make sure that the lights are turned on as it is a wee bit dim over the National Party members, who have failed to understand this bill. Either they have not bothered to read it or they do not understand the way it is written and the way it protects the rights of all New Zealanders to have access to the foreshore and seabed.

National has continued in a desperate attempt to try to find something wrong with the bill, but it has come up with weak, flimflam examples. When National had an opportunity to show that it really supported the foreshore and seabed, and particularly the Bayswater Marina, it voted against the Supplementary Order Paper that came before the Committee to protect and support the Bayswater Marina decision. Therefore, National has shown that it has no interest in anything whatsoever except to sell up the foreshore and seabed. National wants the Bayswater Marina to be in private ownership. It wants to sell it off to anybody, and particularly to overseas buyers. That does not help anybody, and it certainly does not help Māori. All that National wants to do is to help the wealthy, and to sell that marina to them—particularly to overseas investors. Therefore, Māori and all New Zealanders would lose everything. This bill has ensured that the marina will not be sold to anyone—it will not be sold either overseas or locally.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It’s a great bill.

BRENT CATCHPOLE: It is a great bill, and New Zealand First is proud that we have spent so much time on getting it right. We have shown leadership—

Dail Jones: Can we fix it?

BRENT CATCHPOLE: I am being asked whether we could fix it. We have shown that we could fix it, and New Zealand First has fixed it. Yes, we can fix it. New Zealand First has fixed it; we have shown that we can fix it.

On another note, I want to make sure that National understands that the part of the bill that deals with the Resource Management Act has clearly made decisions under that Act a lot clearer.

Before I call the next member, I have a correction to make to votes. I advise that the results were not correctly announced on the votes on the questions that Part 6 as amended be agreed to, that schedule 1 as amended be agreed to, and that schedule 4 as amended be agreed to. In each case, the result was Ayes 66 and Noes 54, not Ayes 76 and Noes 44.

This will be good. Members have asked for the great debater to come to the Chamber. I have heard the call, and here I am. Mahara Okeroa took a call; at last he has found his tongue. Unfortunately, he is a lion in the Chamber, but on the marae he is a mouse. Where was he when his people really needed him? Where was he when his people were asking for due process? He was not at home then. The great shame about this whole bill is that it did not have to happen. It is all premised around a Court of Appeal decision that led some people to say that Māori would have ownership of the foreshore and seabed. If cool heads had prevailed, and if people had taken the time to read that judgment, they would have understood that that was never stated in the first place. But we have a poll-driven Government that thought, because that was the public perception, it would sneak this bill through Parliament in undue, rude haste.

I say to the Māori caucus that it has changed its tune now. I can remember when the Labour Māori MPs were out on the streets of this country, saying that they would not vote for this legislation and would not do dirty backroom deals. That is the great shame of the Māori caucus. That is the way history will remember those members. That is the way they will be reported on the streets of this country today, tomorrow, next week, and the weeks and years after that.

The great shame of it all is that people like Winston Peters have put their name to this deal. Winston Peters is a man who was nourished in the bosom of the National Party. He did all his training with it. He spent the formative years of his political career in the National Party, being groomed for bigger and better things. And what has he done? Winston Peters has ruined that distinguished career by having this millstone around his neck. He will have on his tombstone the words: “Here lies a politician who sold the farm for a few cheap votes.” I can understand people like Michael Cullen doing that, because that is all he has ever known. But guys like Winston Peters and the New Zealand First members, whom I have some respect for, ought to know better than to do that.

New Zealanders are being dispossessed by stealth. [Interruption] The member will get his chance. They are now being told that everything is OK, because the issue has been fixed. Well, it has not been fixed. Naughty, dirty, backroom deals have been done so that New Zealanders can be dispossessed. We are told that ancestral connection has been taken out of this bill. That is an absolute nonsense. Those words may have been taken out—they were too controversial for the Government and the weak members of the Māori caucus. But members of the National Party who have read the bill—who have looked at what has taken place—know that put into the Resource Management Act now is a sneaky, dirty little process whereby people can be dispossessed at will. And the Government does not even have to go to the public. It can just sign away, by cheque after cheque, people’s traditions and ancestry. People in this country deserve better leadership and better governance than they are getting from the likes of Michael Cullen and his cohorts.

I can tell members something else. Everyone talks about the Port of Timaru people being happy. Well, new clause 100 does not take care of that issue. People from the Port of Timaru have called me and said they still worried about it. They have said the Government has not thought the issue out, at all, and have asked me how they can grow the port if they do not have certainty.

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 Maori 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.

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.

It has been quite interesting listening to the last few speakers. I was thankful that the bloke with the nice-looking hat came in to support our tuahine, because she has been here by herself. But he has gone away again, like the leader of that group, who is not here. It was fascinating in the sense of—

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I understand that members cannot refer to whether other members are here in the Chamber. I ask the member to withdraw that remark.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member is correct. Certainly, one cannot refer to members being absent. I ask Mr Horomia to withdraw that remark.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I withdraw and apologise. The member’s overview was fascinating in the context of how this is relevant to overseas countries that have different treaties, a different economy, and different circumstances—such as what happened in Canada. The myth of trying to correlate that with what is happening here—with the doom merchants and the people at the extremes believing that international practices will save us—is a whole lot of hogwash. It is fascinating to those who know the history of what happened in the settlements in Canada.

I listened to the mumbling muppet who mentioned issues around a weak Labour Māori caucus. I will tell members about the Māori caucus in this Government; I will tell them about the courage of this Māori caucus. We are at an all-time low in unemployment. Who did that? This country did. If members want to talk about other countries, why has our ranking in the OECD accelerated? Who did that? This country did. We have got Māori Television going. Who did that? The Māori caucus did, along with this Government. In the last 5 years we have doubled tertiary education participation by Māori people. Who did that? We did it, along with the wānanga, the universities, and, especially, our young demographic. That is the reality that is happening around all of this.

Every reasonable historian knows that, after 200 years as a settled society, a clanking happens—a hump starts to appear in terms of the tensions and strains of contemporary times. That is what is happening here. Who created the impact and effects of the labour market? Our party did, along with the Māori caucus. Who has a Māori language strategy with the aim that within 25 years every Māori whānau in this country will speak their language well? This Māori caucus has. Who amended the legislation on tax issues around lands? This Government did.

I do not hear about all of that. We hear all about the extremes. People want to lock us down in the dungeons of doom and gloom and keep us in the deficit and dependency mode. That is the great thing that is coming out of the prattle from those on the opposite side of the Chamber. They say: “I have Māori friends, and”—some of them—“I actually married one of them, but don’t give them any more than what they’ve ever had. Don’t dare do that, because we’re used to conquest, we’re used to controlling, and we’re used to utilising power at the negative extreme.” That member knows about that.

I say with great pride that this Government has made some of the most dramatic changes and turn-rounds in Māori development in this period of time. That is why I am here being counted. I will be counted against all those things. As that member reminds me, it is no fun sitting in front of the hīkoi, going around the hui and getting chastised for it, and knowing that my whānau name will be alongside this. But at least I will stand up and with pride say that it is the right thing to do at the right time. In contemporary times, this is the way to go forward.

My friend here talked about Churchillian issues. This is Herculean; it is enormous. We have made the right decision. My learned friend the chairman of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee and those who were honest enough to stand the heat took it on the chin. We will be here and we will be counted, along with New Zealand First. I am really thankful that those members have come in at this stage to help us finish passing the legislation. I respect that, so kia ora to them.

Hon Ken Shirley: You’re desperate!

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: If we are desperate, then I do not know what it is like to be polling at 1 percent. We know where we are. I understand if the member translates that into desperateness.

The Resource Management Act is a fascinating thing. Where I come from, people could dig a long drop. That is the fascinating thing. A lot of our young people do not even know what a long drop is anymore. People did not have to go to the council and ask for permission; they dug the hole, they moved the toilet, and they had it there. Now they have to go to the council and ask: “Can I please build a long drop?”. What a load of nonsense!

That was a very interesting speech from the Minister of Māori Affairs. I am very pleased that he is proud of what he sees as his achievements. That is important in Parliament. We as a nation want our Minister of Māori Affairs to do well, but he cannot be the judge of the outcome. The people in our democracy will judge that outcome. His people will weigh up the merits of what they think he has delivered on the one hand and what he has cost them on the other hand. When every iwi that came to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee gave a very clear position of what they expected, when hui after hui around the country—I was at the first one, the Hauraki declaration, and the Minister was there, too—gave a very clear message, he did not listen. He and most of the Māori Labour caucus members did not listen. Their people will judge them for that. Their constituents will judge them for that. That is the great advantage of our open democracy. It is no good members coming here, proclaiming their achievements, beating their chests, and saying how great they are. It is the people who will make that judgment. I believe they will judge the Minister of Māori Affairs very harshly, because he has certainly been found wanting.

The comment has been made in this debate that the Government was between a rock and a hard place. Those members are trying to say that they had no choice. That is simply not so. The Government had numerous alternative options it could have proceeded with that would have delivered a far more harmonious outcome for this country. Let us review some of those options. Firstly, if the Government was not happy with the Court of Appeal judgment, it could have appealed. It was a very clear judgment that said in terms of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act, which was passed by the National Government in 1993, the right for the Māori Land Court, with extended jurisdiction, to issue title over the foreshore and seabed to Māori applicants, did exist—possibly, in rare and remote instances. So it was not as if there was a great big threat. The judgment said that it may exist, based on customary rights and customary title.

What the Government could have done, if it believed in due process—and there were two options, actually, with due process—was appeal that decision to the Privy Council. Did it? No, it did not. Why? Because the Government was so determined to do away with the Privy Council—there was a lot of rhetoric about doing away with the Privy Council—it could not bear the shame and embarrassment of taking a case to the Privy Council. So it did not pursue that option. The Government claims that it was surprised by the Court of Appeal decision. That claim does not stand up to scrutiny, either. Judge Heta Hingston had made his decision on the Marlborough case—the Ngāti Apa case—some 5 or 6 years earlier. It had been running through all the court processes in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, and the Government knew it was coming. Was it so arrogant that it just assumed it would win, even though the initial decision clearly said that there was serious doubt? Yes, the Government was that arrogant, and when it received that decision, what did it do? It just cancelled due process before our courts. That is a very serious issue. The Government did not even take it to the Privy Council. Perhaps it should at least have taken that step, but it did not do that.

So the Government could have taken the case to the Privy Council. Alternatively, it could have just said: “Yes, let’s look at this. What sorts of situations are we talking about where property rights might exist on the foreshore and seabed based on customary title?”. Those situations would be rare and remote. If the Government wanted to acknowledge that that was the due process but, in the public good, then chose to expropriate that, that is always a Government’s right. Governments expropriate private property all the time, and they always have. We have a Public Works Act, mostly for good reason—not always, but mostly—but, of course, the Government has to pay compensation. That would have been a due process. If the Government had gone through the courts and found that, yes, indeed, based on customary title, a very few clear Māori titles did exist, the Government could have stumped up.

What a pleasure it is to follow a member like Ken Shirley! He is erudite, he is intelligent, and he is totally wrong when he comes to interpreting this legislation. What an interesting debate members have had. In this House, there are the two extremes, yet neither leader of those parties has taken a call. It is very important that the leader of the National Party has not come and taken a call, and the leader of the Māori Party has not taken a call, either. Both members have sat very, very quietly. However, I will go back to the title.

A title should always leave the reader in no doubt as to what this legislation is about, and this title definitely leaves the reader in no doubt. This bill sets out to vest ownership of the foreshore and the seabed in the Crown, on behalf of all New Zealanders, and it protects customary rights for everyone. This legislation achieves what New Zealand First set out as our position in June last year. It is fair to all New Zealanders, irrespective of race, and all are treated equally before the law—not like some of the speeches we have heard here today and last night.

Nobody is disadvantaged with this legislation, and Māori have lost nothing. This new law confirms what everybody has already believed—that the Crown owns the foreshore and the seabed, and the existing situation is exactly how it should be. It means that the foreshore and seabed can never be sold off to anybody. It is really important too that the customary rights of all New Zealanders are protected. That is significant, and only New Zealand First has pushed for that. The process is outlined to ensure that that is very clear. This legislation ensures that all New Zealanders are treated equally. There has been a lot of grandstanding over this particular legislation, and that is really sad. The other parties should put aside their perceived differences and act in the interests of all New Zealanders. By the time the Christmas and the New Year holidays come, all New Zealanders will still be enjoying the beaches and the sea with their children and their families—

Hon Member: And their grandchildren.

BARBARA STEWART: —and their grandchildren—in exactly the same way that we have done for many, many years, and they will be wondering what all the fuss was about. We will be supporting this legislation totally, and we cannot see what all that fuss is about.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. We are interested to know what the proportion situation is with regard to speeches at the present time. We know that the Chair keeps good records. It is of interest to us, because we have noticed that normally after this period of time, the Government starts moving closure motions. But for some reason, it has been strangely silent, although it has put up two members, it would appear, to filibuster its own bill. Can you give us an indication of how many—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I remind the member that the member on his feet is raising a point of order. There will be silence. [Interruption] Does the member want to speak to the point of order?

GERRY BROWNLEE: I have not finished.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member has made his point.

GERRY BROWNLEE: No, I have not made my point.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I say to Mr Brownlee that I have ruled that he has made his point.

I understand the member’s point of order to be that he wants to know when the Government will move the closure motion—despite the fact that those members were going to fight this with all the fibre of their being.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I am signifying that we have members who are yet to speak.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): What I would say to the member is that there are many criteria the Chairperson takes into account. One of them is obviously proportionality. That will be dealt with as it is always dealt with—in a proper and fair way.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have answered the member’s question.

GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes, you have—I accept that, and that is fine. I am asking for further clarification. It is interesting to know whether that proportionality, or the decisions of the Chair, are affected by the ongoing contributions from the Government. It was surprising to us that, having spoken very early in this part, the Hon Parekura Horomia, just two speeches ago, decided to give another contribution that brought in, I have to say, quite new material. I want to know whether the opportunity to respond to that in a proportionate way will be part of the Chair’s consideration.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have already answered the question. It is taken into account.

I want to respond to the Minister of Māori Affairs and to some of the outburst that he gave members just before. He spoke about his deep care and concern for Māori, and about his Māori caucus’s fearless advocation on behalf of Māori.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Advocacy.

GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, advocacy, then—I thank Mr Peters. In a former life, Mr Peters was a primary school teacher. He has made little progress. We know about those primary school teachers. They always gave that stuck-up, snooty look to old technical teachers like me.

As for the Labour Party, everyone knows that it has always hated the worker. It has always despised the worker, and I cannot help thinking that that same attitude came through towards Māori in the speech of the Minister of Māori Affairs. When I look at this bill, I see the extraordinary constraints that the Government has put round Māori when it comes to customary rights. I am moved to say—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Make up your mind.

GERRY BROWNLEE: —that the only people in this country—I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Firstly, where is the clock?

Continue with the point of order.

GERRY BROWNLEE: If a person takes a point of order, it should not come off that person’s allocated speaking time.

We attend to that.

GERRY BROWNLEE: I do hope you will listen very, very carefully to some of the comments made in interjections. I am particularly sensitive about this because of my ejection from the Chamber yesterday over exactly this sort of issue. I do not want to have to go through the same performance to highlight some of the extreme bad manners being exhibited by other members in this Chamber—particularly members who know that they are skating on thin ice, have weak arguments, and have very little else to offer the Committee.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I thank the member for his point of order. There have been lots of interjections on both sides of the Chamber. Members have indicated that they want a robust debate, and I will rule accordingly.

GERRY BROWNLEE: I am taking a very simple position. We notice that in this bill there is now a huge court process around the establishment of customary rights. Something National is very proud of is that, under the National Government, customary rights were those that were accepted to be so because they were demonstrated to be so. We included those in treaty settlements without any difficulty, and I cannot see why Māori now have to go through this extraordinary proof process around customary rights.

Hon Dover Samuels: Don’t have to.

GERRY BROWNLEE: I can see Dover Samuels scratching his head and saying that it is all right, and that they do not have to. Māori cannot have those rights recognised if they do not do that. I think the problem with this bill is, firstly, that it is unfair to most New Zealanders and is, therefore, racist. It is racist on two counts. It apparently makes Māori the only people in this country who can have customary rights, but it then states that they can have those rights only if they are ratified by a court. For the rest of us, there is this sham process available that I dare say will never be used successfully—and the Government knows that.

Going around telling New Zealanders that it has protected the foreshore and seabed in perpetuity is also a gross misrepresentation of the actual truth in this bill. Under clauses 112 and 115, the Government reserves for itself the absolute right to dispose of the seabed and foreshore as it sees fit.

The worst thing is that the Government has said that it trusts the public’s interest in the foreshore and seabed being in the hands of the Minister of Conservation—and everyone knows that that means it will be in the hands of the Director-General of Conservation. He is an unelected public official who anonymously goes about administering, at this stage, over a third of this country’s land mass. When we add in this new requirement to look after the seabed and foreshore, it is a very substantial increase on that amount. That is just plain unacceptable.

We are seeing from the Minister of Māori Affairs this pathetic cry of how well the Government has done for Māori. We are in some of New Zealand’s best economic times, and that is entirely due to the National Government of the late 1990s. We now have low Māori unemployment; well, is that not just a core requirement of politicians?

Hon Parekura Horomia: Concede it!

GERRY BROWNLEE: I ask Mr Horomia to take another call. I bet he will not. There is not a chance. He will stay seated on his backside. [Interruption] I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. That was an extraordinary outburst from the other side of the Chamber. Some of what the Minister of Māori Affairs was saying to me was personally very offensive. Much as the Prime Minister was deeply hurt by the Nuremburg comment the other day, I was too, of course.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member has taken offence. I ask Mr Horomia to stand, withdraw, and apologise for that remark.

Hon Parekura Horomia: I withdraw and apologise.

I have been sitting here just pondering on the path that this legislation has taken over the past 18 months finally to get to this point. It occurs to me that the real crime, the greatest hoax, the biggest fraud, the most unforgivable act of deception, because it misled, because it promoted a falsity that created a mirage of ownership, and because it tantalised the most vulnerable and the most impoverished with a promise of unlimited wealth, and that was fuelled by underlying greed, wrapped in a pretence of tikanga, and carried on a wave of emotion, was the promotion of the lie that Māori owned the foreshore and the seabed. Why does that vex me so? Because from that falsity, that misrepresentation, has been born a festering broth that has incited racism from Māori and toward Māori that does New Zealand no good whatsoever.

Perhaps the thing that hurts the most is that it will all, sadly, end in tears. It may well be that it takes 3 years for some of my extended whanaunga to come to the final realisation that the belief, the trust, and the faith that they have placed in the gravy train conductors of the Māori Party, the 21st century missionaries of the United Future party, and the intergalactic travellers of the Green Party have led them totally up the garden path. I have to say that probably some of the most—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I will remind members again to be silent when a point of order is being heard.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I take personal offence at being described as “intergalactic” by that member in his speech, and I ask that he be required to withdraw and apologise for that offensive, derogatory remark.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I think we are starting to get into some difficulty. This is a robust Chamber. There are comments that are offensive, which we all sometimes make, but there is also a level of language that is representative of people’s description of what they think people’s positions and views are. Describing somebody in terms of being an intergalactic traveller suggests he or she is out in some different area of the ether. Whether or not one regards it as offensive, I do not think one can make a case in this House that it is an offensive remark of the sort that requires a withdrawal and apology. We in this Parliament will find ourselves with the shortest Oxford Dictionary in the world, if we are not careful.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I think Dr Cullen is correct, and we have had some marginal calls at times, and Mr Prebble certainly pointed that out yesterday. I really do not think that that comment is one that requires a withdrawal.

RON MARK: Thank you, Madam Chairperson, and thank you, Dr Cullen, for your wisdom. I have to say that many of my whanaunga are going to wake up in 3 years’ time. It may well be that the Māori Party and even perhaps the Green Party have more representatives here in this House after this next election. That may well be the case. But I predict that the realisation will come home to all New Zealanders, after they have had their holidays in the sun, on beaches and rocky foreshores up and down the country over the next few months, that much of what they have been hearing is lies, deception, and falsity. We as a nation will thank the wisdom, the fortitude, and the determination of the two parties involved who brought this legislation to the House.

I say to my colleagues in the National Party that I heard all their arguments here. They complained that there were too many words in the bill, that it had too many pages, that it was too long and too difficult—

Hon Murray McCully: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I waited for a minute. The member used the word “lies” and I hoped he was not referring to any member in this Chamber, because that would be disorderly, but his subsequent words gave the very clear impression that that expression had been aimed in the direction of members. If so, I believe that offence could be taken, and the member should be asked to withdraw.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I certainly did not take that remark in that context. It was taken in the context of the member’s description of the legislation. I listened very carefully.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I just ask for consistency because only yesterday in the Chamber—and I have the Hansard in front of me—you ruled the word “fib” out of order. That was not said in respect of anybody else. You said it was an inappropriate word. Can you explain to me why, when a National member uses the word “fib”, it is ruled out of order and I am required to withdraw, but when Mr Ron Mark used the word “lies”, because he happens to be supporting the—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I will explain in simple terms to the member. Very simply, if a member uses that term in relation to another member, it will be ruled out. If a member uses it in relation to legislation, as it has been used throughout the debate—and that has been clarified several times—it is perfectly in order.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is it a new point of order?

Gerry Brownlee: Yes, it is. I need you to clarify for us whether a member of the National Party talking about the legislation and the way it is being presented, and suggesting that there are fibs being told, is different from a member of the New Zealand First Party, which supports the bill, saying that the Opposition has, at some points, represented the bill in a way that could be construed as lies. It is the same thing.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: The distinction is a very simple one. It is a question of who is telling the fibs. If it is a member of this House, then the accusation is out of order. I listened to Mr Mark very carefully, and what he said was not in the context of members of the House. If it had been, it would clearly have been out of order. The comment yesterday was in fact in the context of members of the House, but, in any case, it cannot be relitigated now—it is in the past. I suggest, therefore, that the rule is quite clear.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Ron Mark referred to lies and other issues, then said he now wanted to talk to his colleagues in the National Party, which clearly bisected what he was saying before from what he was about to say. They heard that. But my point of order is that I am sick and tired of the number of points of order being raised by this petulant National Party time after time that are without any merit whatsoever. I have never seen such juvenile behaviour in my whole time in Parliament. Those members sit over there, not knowing the Standing Orders or what is right or fair, and raise countless points of order when we are talking. We are totally sick of it.

Hon Murray McCully: Madam Chair, I think I indicated to you in the first place that I had waited because I thought there was some doubt as to whether there was a reference to members. Far be it from me to offer you guidance, but I think the normal course in such circumstances has been for presiding officers to ask the member whether he or she was referring to members of the House, and if an assurance is given that he or she was not, then that is accepted. I was hoping that Mr Mark was not referring to a member of the House. If you were to avail yourself of that facility, Madam Chair, I am sure Mr Mark could put the matter right for us.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Mr Mark had indicated to me, but that was not required as I had heard it very clearly. I say to Mr Peters, on his contribution to the point of order, that, yes, this has been a robust debate and, yes, there have been a lot of unnecessary calls for points of order that have not been points of order.

RON MARK: Given the rather unacceptable and persistent interdictions on my speech, which was clearly hitting a raw nerve in some areas, I seek leave that my time be restarted.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is not.

RON MARK: Thank you, and I thank members. I have to say that that is the sort of thing one gets when one is rudderless—when one pledges to come and fight a piece of legislation with every sinew of one’s soul, bones, and heart, yet sits in the Chamber and does not take one call. In my time in the military we always taught people a few things, and they have been demonstrated by the courage and fortitude behind the passage of this legislation: firstly, that one leads by example; secondly, that one does not ask soldiers to do anything that one is not prepared to do oneself; and, thirdly, that one always puts one’s troops first, and encounters the most dangerous situations with them, for them, by them, and at precisely the same time that combat has been engaged. I have to say that the reason that certain parties in this House lose their way, get distracted, and end up acting like petulant little schoolboys is that they do not have a leader. I have only one plea for the former great National Party, and that is to “Bring back Bill!”—“Bring back Bill!”. I know that had Bill English been sitting in that chair, he would have fought this legislation tooth and nail, down to the wire, with every sinew, every fibre, and every drop of blood in his body. But that is not what we have seen here in the last couple of days, is it?

To my colleagues on my left—who are normally, politically speaking, on the right—ACT, I say that I am impressed. The most consistent, competent argument and debate, through these many hours, in opposition to the bill has come from the ACT party. But the tragedy is that that is irrelevant, because ACT will not be here next year.

Then I come to my dearly beloved whanaunga in the Māori Party. There was not one sound, syllable, utterance, murmur, or mutter from that great party, which came to this House with placards and banners waving and flying in the wind, and with 10-foot photographs held high. It was going to fight the bill all the way to its doomy, gloomy grave. Not a sound, not a mutter, not a murmur, not a syllable has passed through its member’s lips, and those lips are being paid $100,000 a year for doing zilch—nothing. Well done!

Turning to the United Future party and the Greens, I ask them to spare us the indignity. Māori have put up with and tolerated the socialist rantings and the favours of missionaries for decades and decades—for 200 years. We do not need any more. The missionaries have had their day. They should go to Africa and find some indigenous people who need their help, because we do not. Māori are quite capable of articulating for themselves their own views and deciding among themselves what they want. What they want is what is right for all New Zealanders, and they do not want to be misled, they do not want to have their hands held, they do not want warm fuzzies and cuddlies, and they certainly do not need to communicate with outer space on that frequency any more.

I am going to deal with a couple of inconsistencies and some of the arguments put up by my National Party friends. I have heard Dr Nick Smith’s arguments regarding access, and I take on board his comments that this issue has affected him in his Nelson area. But I have never heard a word about the travesty that has been going on in Riversdale ever since I was 11 years old. Today, that iron fence that goes right down into the breakers, down to the low-tide mark, that is made out of railway irons, and that was owned and put up by Mr Meredith, still stands there in testament to, as a monument to, the days when he used to stand on that beach, on that foreshore, and stop us, Māori and Pākehā, from gathering kai moana off that beach. There has not been a word said against him!

It is sobering to reflect on how it is that we are debating the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, because it arises out of judicial activism of the Court of Appeal. If the Court of Appeal had followed the course that has been generally followed for judges who seek substantive law change, then these issues that have confronted us in urgency for the last 2 days would never have arisen. What has happened in the past where the judges have found that the law is unsatisfactory, is that they have quite simply said that the law requires change, and that that is a matter for the legislature. But they chose not to exercise that option, and that is why, with others, I have expressed doubt about the wisdom of the new Supreme Court. The new court gives the judges the possibility of yielding to the temptation of judicial creativity. The law had been settled and well known for a number of years. It was crystal clear that the Crown owned the foreshore and the seabed.

The Court of Appeal sought to meddle in that, unwisely—very unwisely, with the benefit of hindsight, because it has plunged this House and this Committee into turmoil for almost 2½ years. So I say to members that the outcome of a process that we have embarked upon with this bill will be to raise the expectations, both of Māori and non-Māori, in such a way that those hopes will certainly not be realised—will certainly be dashed.

Why do I say that? Well, one looks at the threshold tests in Part 3, which we have debated, clause by clause, in the Committee stage. One looks at Part 4, which reeks of political correctness. This process that the Government has set in Part 4 to allow non-Māori groups to assert claims for customary rights is impossible. It is impossible of realisation. That is why, as we talk about the title—the “Foreshore and Seabed Bill”—I suggest that it would be better named the “Floor Show and Seabed Bill.”, because it is, on any view, a fiasco.

Customary rights should have been recognised, as they have been, in the context of Treaty of Waitangi settlements. They should not be the subject of a process where the courts of record have to decide tricky and near-impossible issues of tikanga Māori against the background of showing uninterrupted possession since 1840. It is a wholly unsatisfactory circumstance. It has also, in this Chamber, pitted Māori against non-Māori. That is doubly unfortunate, for no one should deny the strength and the need to preserve Māori culture and language. But we have moved on from that. We have moved on to a position of seeking to codify property rights.

I listened with interest to what the chairman of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee, Russell Fairbrother, had to say on that issue. He saw this bill as simply being about the codifying of property rights. But it is far more than that. The codification process is not a process that will provide certainty. It will instead provide, I think, for all of us, a degree of division that should surely have been avoided.

Perhaps we might like to call this bill the “Anti-democracy Bill”, because if there has been one atrocity committed by the Government in the last 6-8 months, or even 18 months, it is that the democratic process has been fundamentally undermined by everything that it has done to try to justify its enactment of unjust confiscatory legislation. First, the Government went through a process of consultation hui. I went to a large number of those hui, and I saw Michael Cullen treat those people who attended those hui—those large numbers of Māori who travelled great distances to get there—with absolute disdain. He told them that they were, effectively, ignorant, and that their problem with Government policy was because they just did not understand. That is right. Michael Cullen says that Māori just do not get it, because we do not know enough about it. He hides behind these great legal principles in trying to justify this wrongful action—in the face of the continual statements from kuia and kaumātua during the hui process that this was wrong.

We remembered the previous confiscation. We have seen this all before. We know exactly what this is and we do not want to see it again in the 21st century. But Michael Cullen refused to understand and refused to acknowledge their experience, and instead took an arrogant and paternalistic attitude.

Then, of course, we had Trevor Mallard at one of the hui in Taranaki—one of the places where the worst atrocities in this country have been committed against Māori—telling them that it is their own fault—like the Minister of Māori Affairs—that Māori sell off their land and they need to be protected from themselves. It is an arrogant assumption that somehow we are still natives, we are still savages and undeveloped, cannot be responsible for our own assets and own lands, and we cannot be responsible for the good of the nation.

In the face of all of the generosity that Māori have expressed over the last 150 years, and the amount of natural heritage that Māori have contributed to this country as a whole in that state of generosity, Trevor Mallard stood there and told these people in Taranaki that it was their own fault.

Then we went into the select committee process, which again was an incredible farce. It was amazing that 4,000 people can make submissions, and 2,000 of them wanted to be heard, yet this Government, along with New Zealand First, which trails behind obediently, doing exactly as it is told, refused to allow the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee the time that it needed to hear those submissions. Two thousand people asked to be heard because they had something to contribute to the democratic process of this nation. They were not even written to. They had no response from the select committee, because the Government and New Zealand First members refused to allow them to be written to, and thanked for their efforts to contribute to this country’s democratic process. They did not even get a response.

Of those 2,000 submitters, 200-odd got heard. At one point we had six iwi from the west coast of the North Island, from Taranaki all the way down to Ōtaki, who travelled to Wellington to be heard by the select committee, and what did they get? They got 20 minutes between six iwi to hear their very real concerns as coastal people to whom this legislation has a direct effect on their lives. The select committee would not even give them the time to be heard individually. There was 20 minutes between six iwi, and on and on it went.

Te tiamana o Ngāti Kahungunu iwi, nau mai, haere mai, tēnā koe, tēnā koe, tēnā koe.

[To the chairman of the Ngāti Kahungunu people, welcome, welcome, and greetings to you.]

Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.

EDWIN PERRY: I know this is a wide-ranging debate, and I shall touch on various issues with regard to the legislation. Firstly, I shall talk about access. A lot of comments have been made to the effect that Māori will stop people from going to the beach this summer. I want to enlighten everybody by saying that in the Wairarapa that is not the case. It has not been the case. A number of Pākehā have come to my office to tell me that they have been stopped from going to the beach by their own people. Māori have also been stopped from going to the beach. An example of that is at Riversdale, where I own a beach house. Our people were virtually conned out of some land there. Quite frankly, a reserve was taken from them by using measures such as telling them that the land would be no good to develop. What happened was that the local farmer and the county council at the time colluded, and bought the property off our people. Today, half-million dollar properties are on that land. I talk about a prime piece of coastal land that is now worth a lot of money. Sure, maybe some Māori may stop people from going to the beach this summer. However, when Mahara Okeroa visits my moana this summer, we will still drive down the beach and enjoy it as every other New Zealander would. I invite members from the National Party, the ACT party, the Green Party, and my whanaunga Metiria Turei from Papawai to experience the true kaitiakitanga put into this legislation by New Zealand First.

I shall talk briefly about the customary rights of my hapū, Ngāi Tūmapuhiaarangi, on the Wairarapa coast. A USA motivational speaker said at one stage: “Your time has come.” I believe that our hapū’s time has come to identify its customary right to the coastline within its boundary lines, which is from the Whareama river to the Āwhea river on the Wairarapa coast. What will my hapū have to do in order to be able to identify its customary rights, or its claim, to that piece of coastline? First, it will have to put its claim to the Māori Land Court, and then to the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Māori Affairs. Once it is validated, the hapū will then have the customary right to that piece of coastline. I say to the Māori people that the Marine Reserves Bill sits somewhere gathering dust in the bowels of this building. But with the passing of this legislation, our hapū will be able to claim its customary rights to the coastal boundary, so now it will be able to quite easily negotiate the placing of marine reserves on a level playing field. Prior to this legislation going through, the hapū really had an airy-fairy agreement for that to happen.

I shall talk quickly about who started this issue. How did it start? Obviously, it started in the Marlborough Sounds, where there were 19 proposals from an iwi to gain access for mussel farming. In 1991, National included wāhi tapu in the Resource Management Act, as well—that allowed that to happen. In 1993, National passed the Act that enabled Māori to get fee simple title, and ACT wants that to be kept in. Why? Because it wants to sell the foreshore and seabed off. That is no different from what National will do if it gets its hands on them. I tell Mr McCully that one good thing in this agreement is that New Zealand First has made it quite clear that that land will never be sold. I am happy about that.

Here is a good one for the National Party. Over the last 18 months this bill went through the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee. What did National Party members say? They said that with Crown ownership and customary rights for Māori, Māori did not get anything—Māori got nothing. What do they say now? There is a racial slur on this issue, now that those members say Māori are getting everything. What is the problem with National? It has to make up its mind what it is doing. I can tell the National Party what a number of its members in the Wairarapa are saying.

I shall talk about the consistency of political parties’ positions on the foreshore and seabed issue. First I shall start with the Labour Party. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, has claimed that the Labour Party believes in Crown ownership for all New Zealanders, and that access is guaranteed. Of course, we on the Opposition side of the Chamber know that that is not a correct description of what the bill contains. We know that the way that was done was by buying off the Māori members of the Labour caucus with all kinds of derogations, territorial customary rights orders, customary rights orders, provisions in the Resource Management Act, and, of course, the treaty settlement provisions. I guess we will find out shortly that Nanaia Mahuta’s vote has been bought on the fact that Tainui will be getting title to the west coast harbours—just like the case of Lake Rotorua. National has drawn a line in the sand on this issue, and we believe in a single, simple principle. For the area of the public domain—if one will—that we all use, we believe in Crown ownership on behalf of all New Zealanders. It should not be sold, but should be kept for the public enjoyment of all New Zealanders, irrespective of race.

I guess that Labour at least has been honest. It has admitted its inconsistencies. On the other hand, New Zealand First simply does not know that it is being inconsistent. New Zealand First goes up and down the country, and makes a virtue of the fact that it says it believes in one law for all. I suppose that is true to the extent that this Parliament will be passing a single document, so that all this law will be contained in a single Act. The trouble is that that Act will contain two separate laws: one for New Zealanders in general, Māori and non-Māori alike, and then a subset for Māori alone. How can that possibly meet the test of one law for all New Zealanders? I have to go through that issue, because there was a simple approach. In fact, the Prime Minister had it right 18 months ago, as indeed did the Minister of Justice. Their initial reaction was, in fact, the correct reaction. It was to provide a confirmatory statute that would have stated Crown ownership—absolute ownership—on behalf of all New Zealanders. National said that it would support that.

That was the Government’s initial reaction. It was only after the reaction of the Māori caucus to that position that it was changed. So the legislation went from a simple 1 or 2-page confirmatory bill, which is what the Prime Minister had wanted, to a 117-clause bill that provides Crown ownership, territorial customary rights, Māori reserves, customary rights to be determined by the Māori Land Court, customary rights before the High Court, amendments to the Resource Management Act, and of course, specific clauses for treaty settlements. There are so many exceptions to the general principle of Crown ownership on behalf of all New Zealanders that that is now simply a sham.

The Labour Government is quite happy with that—it is proud of it. On the other hand, the New Zealand First Party has been fundamentally duped. When I hear Mr Mark and Mr Perry, or indeed, the leader of New Zealand First, say that they have fixed the problem, I know they have not. They have wrecked the law for New Zealanders.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Who broke it?

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Those guys broke it by passing this law. New Zealand First has broken the law. That is what it has done—it has broken the law. I am sick and tired of hearing its members’ boasts, which are based on a fundamental fallacy that they believe in one law for all. Their vote today will totally vacate that idea.

I just want to pass on one point to members. We talked about customary rights, and it is in our minority report. They are referred to in the existing legislation as mātaitai and taiāpure under the Fisheries Act 1996. We have always said that it is around those vehicles that one can protect customary rights, as well as through the treaty settlements.

I start by paying a special tribute to my colleague Dail Jones, because I believe he has done a tremendous job in working on the details of this legislation. When New Zealanders go to the beach this Christmas and sunbathe on the beach, they will know that New Zealand First has secured that activity for New Zealanders for the rest of their lives, and for the next generation. When New Zealanders collect tuatua from Tokerau Beach they will know that New Zealand First has secured that activity for future generations. When grandparents are down on the beach building sandcastles with their grandchildren, they will know that those grandchildren’s grandchildren will be able to carry out that same activity—it will be uninterrupted—because of the stand that New Zealand First has taken with the Government on this issue.

I want to talk about New Zealand First’s position since the Court of Appeal ruling. When that judgment was made, we recognised that it was momentous and would have huge implications for New Zealand and its future. So, firstly, we made a statement of our position. We said that we believed that the foreshore and seabed should be secured for all New Zealanders in the ownership of the Crown, but that customary rights mechanisms should be in place to enable those rights to be applied. I say to the National members that those customary rights derive from common law, which is the “one law for all” that was brought into this country in 1840. The National members want to have one law for all, but when the results of the application of the principle of one law for all do not suit them, they do not want it—they want some other law. Customary rights come from common law rights, and we need to ensure that within the mechanism of the law a way is found to recognise them.

Second, after the Court of Appeal ruling we made a deliberate decision to shut up. I defy anybody to find any statement made by a New Zealand First member from that time onwards, because we realised that the situation had the potential to inflame the nation—which it did—if people were making statements that were incorrect. There has never been an issue that has been so poorly articulated by the media as this particular issue was. We said nothing, because we knew that to say something wrong would inflame the situation. That was unlike a certain other party, which made a certain speech that set out deliberately to divide this nation. That speech, made at Ōrewa by the leader of the National Party, set out to divide this nation. New Zealand First said no, that was not the way we would go. We did our homework. We really did some work on the issue. I have to say that reading the appeal court judgment—and I doubt whether many MPs actually did that—was hard yacker for me. Some of the legal concepts in there were unusual for us, and I had to go back to it and back to it, asking myself what it was actually stating.

What that judgment stated was that the law that was left for us, for all New Zealanders, by National actually meant that Oriental Bay could be sold into foreign ownership.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Nonsense!

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: It could be sold into foreign ownership; that is the law as it stands right here today. We could have had to go down and pay in order to go on to our beaches in New Zealand. Certainly, something had to be done to fix that up. The first point is that Labour came to us and asked us whether we would help it to fix that situation, and we said yes. The other point is that we must ask ourselves who broke it in the first place. National broke it. That is why we have had to come along and fix it. The law that was left behind by National is a law that allows for the alienation of the foreshore and seabed. I ask the Minister in the chair, Dr Cullen, whether I am right.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: That’s right.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: That is what stands at the moment. I cannot understand how National members can go out to the people of New Zealand and say they oppose a bill that will overcome that situation, which is intolerable to most, if not all, New Zealanders.

There is the point about people like myself not having the same degree of customary right as the indigenous people of New Zealand. I blame that on my ancestors, because they came to New Zealand. If they had stayed in Ireland, then I would have the same degree of customary right there as Māori people have in New Zealand. But actually I am glad my ancestors forsook some of that customary right back in Ireland and came to New Zealand, because I would far rather be a citizen of New Zealand than of Ireland. We can still go and visit Ireland, and it is nice to listen to the music. But the fact that has to be recognised is that customary rights come with age.

The Foreshore and Seabed Bill is one of those pieces of legislation that will raise incredibly the expectations of Māori, only to see them dashed. It is appropriate in this call, and I hope in the calls I will have as we move into the very late afternoon, to talk briefly about the concept of what it is to be a Māori. It is not an issue that is easy to talk about; it is the sort of issue that strongly stirs people like Dover Samuels. But if we look at our community today, we see it as one that is substantially intermingled and intermixed.

In a constitutional setting, the starting point—maybe the finishing point, too—is the definition of Māori in the Electoral Act. “Maori” means a person of the Māori race of New Zealand and includes any descendant of such a person. I make the point that that definition was not always the definition. It is a definition from legislation passed in 1993.

Prior to 1986, census definitions were based much more obviously on a concept of ancestry or biological make-up. In general terms, the Māori population was defined as those with half or more Māori blood. That was the definition of Māori, and Parliament enacted legislation to that effect. One such example is the Births and Deaths Registration Act of 1951, and at least in the period from 1951 to 1995, that was the law. The Māori population was defined as those with half or more Māori blood, and at the 1981 census, which I understand is the census from which most recent figures were kept, only 6.9 percent of the population had half or more Māori blood.

I suspect that the number of people now who can properly claim to be Māori in terms of the biological definition, is perhaps in the order of 2 percent. What is the significance of that? We have heard from people like John Tamihere—

Hon Parekura Horomia: Who is your doctor?

RICHARD WORTH: I will talk about my doctor in a moment—that Māori, in the context of this bill, seek to lay claim to perhaps 10 percent of the coastline. So 2 percent of the people are laying claim to 10 percent of the coastline; where is the justice in that?

Some of the more noisy claimants for bounty have very strong non-Māori heritage. There are many examples in this Parliament. John Tamihere might be one. The Hon Tariana Turia is probably a really good example, with her American father. What the Government is doing and what should be of concern to us all—

Tariana Turia: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I do not think it is for the member on his feet to be defining whakapapa that he knows nothing about.

RICHARD WORTH: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Chairperson, I point out that that is obviously a debating point and not a point of order. It is an abuse of the process of the Committee to interrupt a member’s speech.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member is quite correct; that is not a point of order.

RICHARD WORTH: So where does the Foreshore and Seabed Bill take us? It is better described as the “Floorshow and Seabed Bill”, because an absolute farce is being played out in a number of its parts.

In Part 4, rights are given to non-Māori people, Caucasian or European, somehow to advance claims for customary title. How will they do that? I challenge Russell Fairbrother, the chairman of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee to stand and explain how any group could possibly fit within the statutory test set in that part. The part has been deliberately designed to put up a smokescreen—a real smoke and mirrors deal—with no real possibility of such groups establishing those claims.

I conclude as I started, by saying that we should be truly concerned about this legislation. It has been rushed through Parliament. It has heightened Māori expectations, and non-Māori resentment will continue to grow.

If I have the leave of the House, I am happy to talk about my doctorate and the processes that led to that award. I so seek leave.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member is seeking leave for an extension of his speech. Is there any objection? There is objection.

All New Zealanders can go down to the beach this summer, when this legislation has passed, knowing that they will have no problems.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Even Arsenal supporters.

PETER BROWN: Even Arsenal supporters can go down to the beach and wave the flag for the “Gunners”, particularly after they have thumped Spurs 5-4. As a result of this legislation, New Zealanders will sit on the beach, enjoying their barbecues, without this seabed and foreshore issue hanging over them. New Zealand First is exceedingly pleased that this legislation is about to pass. It has largely occurred because this House has gone into urgency. I have to say, though, I wonder why we went into urgency, in that we will finish this afternoon earlier than normal. [Interruption]

I say to the member that we believed National Party members when they said they would fight this bill with every breath in their bodies. We actually believed them. But I say to the member, who wants to keep interjecting, that the more he goes along that line, the more embarrassed he will become. I point out to this Committee that usually the Government does not take terribly many calls when the House goes into urgency. It is usually only Opposition members who speak. Had that been the case with this bill—no calls from the Government, and no calls from New Zealand First to support it—we would probably have finished last night. I can say that the National Party has been hot air and hot wind—but not much of it.

There have been some snipes, and I can hear a few now. I personally regret that the leader of the National Party has not seen fit to take a call in this debate. There is a particular reason why the Leader of the Opposition should have taken a call. He has a very calming influence over this House. The last major speech he made in this House on a social issue was exceedingly calming, I can tell members. I say to members that from time to time the National Party could have done with a bit of calming influence.

Tariana Turia has interjected quite a few times in this debate. She went to the Business Committee and sought an additional call, and I think every party supported that. But I had not heard one syllable from her officially, through the microphone, until she took a point of order a little while ago. Why does the member not take a call? She supposedly represents a lot of Māori people, and she has not taken one call in the Committee stage of this bill, where possibly she could have had some influence.

I would like to refer to United Future. That party, I believe, is fairly close to supporting this bill, and I am disappointed that it could not move that little bit closer. I think United Future’s opposition is hanging on the thread that we did not recognise the concept of public domain. I tell United Future members to go and ask the public what the words “public domain” mean to them. If they ask 20 people, they will get 20 different answers. If they ask any New Zealander what Crown ownership means, they will get one answer that everybody understands and everybody believes in. I am absolutely proud and delighted that my colleagues in New Zealand First supported the Labour Party Government in having Crown ownership thoroughly recognised.

I say to National Party members that I have listened to all their public utterances and their statements, and I have come to the conclusion that they like this bill very much but their pride will not let them vote for it. Pride has got in the way of their doing the right thing by all New Zealanders.

If I do have one disappointment about the bill and about the tone of this debate, it is that it has, from time to time, tried to divide this nation—Māori and non-Māori. I say to people, and I say this with some sincerity, that if they think we will bridge the differences between Māori and non-Māori by being patronising to Māori, then they are wrong. If they think we will bridge the differences between Māori and non-Māori by taking a rebellious attitude, as perhaps the Māori Party wants to take, then they are wrong. If they think they will bridge the differences between Māori and non-Māori in this country by being superior, then they are wrong.

The longer this debate goes on, the more ridiculous it is becoming. I agree with the member who spoke before me, who said that New Zealanders understand Crown ownership. The point he has missed is that the majority of submitters did not like the concept of Crown ownership. They wanted public domain.

Throughout this debate I have heard the Rt Hon Winston Peters announce on a number of occasions that this legislation is not about people going to the beach. We have heard again and again that this legislation will not affect anybody’s right to go to the beach. Now, at the end of the debate, we have heard the last two speakers from New Zealand First say that when people go to the beach this summer they can thank New Zealand First for it. I ask who is spreading half-truths around the country. Who is creating problems in the way that this debate has been handled?

I understand that the Labour members are enjoying their time this afternoon, sitting here and watching the National Party members stumble through this debate, and that they are tempted to allow it to continue. But I would like to remind them that that would be at the expense of the New Zealand taxpayers, and I urge someone on that side of the Chamber to please move a closure motion, because this debate has gone on long enough.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I take this point of order to advise the Committee, more than anything, that the Supreme Court has just brought down its decision, in favour of the ACT party.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That is not a point of order.

I move, That the question be now put.

I move, That the Committee divide the bill into the Foreshore and Seabed Bill and the Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 305.

In the circumstances, a number of the ACT party caucus are across the road at the High Court, and I therefore seek the leave of the Committee that, notwithstanding Standing Order 156, we vote to our full strength of eight, shortly to be nine.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not. Leave is granted.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. My apologies; I need to seek leave to correct the Green Party votes that have occurred since 2 p.m. this afternoon, from nine votes to eight. My apologies for that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That will be corrected. I will read out the new results as soon as they are collated.