Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill

I am happy to stand in the Committee stage of the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill. As has been said in the first and second readings of this bill, it is a relatively straightforward bill, but it is very important to the Gisborne community. As has been said before, many of the activities carried out in Alfred Cox Park, which have been carried out for a very long time, have since been deemed to be illegal under the Reserves Act. Those activities include the flea market, which is a great drawcard for people in our community, the information centre, and, of course, the intercity bus depot. I urge all members to support this bill. This bill will mean that many of the activities that we have always taken for granted in Gisborne will continue to be carried out unabated.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson. In the Māori Party’s first opportunity to speak on the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill, at its second reading, we opposed it. Our reason for doing so was in line with our reason for opposing any bill—if we do not believe that it will defend the rights of, and advance progress for, tangata whenua. We believe that it is in the interests of Aotearoa that each and every development reflects the unique perspectives that come from consultation with tangata whenua.

Our aspirations for advancing any initiatives will reflect our belief that an appropriate and mandated consultation process has been undertaken in formulating ideas. Consultation is defined by Justice McGechan: “Consultation does not mean negotiation or agreement. It means: setting out a proposal not fully decided upon; adequately informing a party about relevant information upon which the proposal is based; listening to what the others have to say with an open mind (in that there is room to be persuaded against the proposal); undertaking that task in a genuine and not cosmetic manner; reaching a decision that may or may not alter the original proposal.”

When Dr Sharples spoke in the second reading of the bill he raised the issue of consultation with Rongowhakaata. It was our position, as set out in his kōrero, that given that Rongowhakaata had a key interest in the land associated with the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill, their voices had to be heard. That was our first opportunity to talk on the bill. The bill’s first reading was on 27 July 2005, when the Māori Party had only one member in Parliament—a member who was not allocated a speaking slot in the debate. So it was disappointing to read that the member sponsoring the bill, Anne Tolley, was angered by the last minute efforts and supposed political grandstanding, but I think we have worked through those issues. I imagine that such anger might be felt in the same way by Rongowhakaata.

If we are to move forward as a nation, we must respect the important perspectives that come from the first-nation people of the land. Rongowhakaata have a significant association and history with the land that is implicated in this bill. It is a history that many others in this Chamber may be unfamiliar with, but it is nonetheless part of the history of Aotearoa.

We will stand up for the right of all Māori to be heard in this Chamber, as we do today for Rongowhakaata. We do so in our belief that a prosperous future for Aotearoa will involve us all working together to share our different histories, and to focus, through our differences, on what we can also share together. Kia ora tātou.

I rise to take just a very short call on the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Bill, because New Zealand First has already indicated that it will support it. We believe that the provision with regard to the use of Alfred Cox Park is common sense and quite important in terms of its usage by the residents of the city of Gisborne.

We listened with interest to the presentation put forward by the Māori Party at the second reading and again today about the position of Rongowhakaata. I guess that in some respects we are not convinced that this bill has any impact on those rights, because all it does is validate something that is already taking place. Therefore, although we agree with the Māori Party that there is an issue in that area, we certainly do not agree that this legislation will affect those particular rights because of the consultation issues raised by Te Ururoa Flavell.

New Zealand First will continue to support the bill, and hopefully we can get it through as quickly as possible.

I rise to speak in the Committee stage of the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill. I want to make just a couple of points. First, my colleague Moana Mackey has already explained that this is a small bill, but is of significant importance to the Gisborne District Council because it has found that it is operating outside the law, and no council wants to be placed in that position.

The bill has a reasonably long history. I understand that it has taken about 7 years to get to this stage, and, as I indicated earlier, it was started by the former member Janet Mackey. That leads me to my second point, which is about consultation. Dr Pita Sharples spoke in the second reading stage on behalf of Rongowhakaata, whom he said had not been consulted. I want to raise two points about consultation that apply particularly to this bill, but that have wider implications. There are processes that form part of a local bill. The council was obviously very surprised to hear that there were people who had some concerns about the bill who had not already expressed those concerns to the council. This was despite the fact that the council’s Māori liaison officer was of Rongowhakaata descent, and despite the fact that one of its own councillors was a member of the same political party that stood in this House and raised objections. So it came as a surprise to it.

It also came as a surprise to the council that it was required to go and consult, when, in fact, there was no resource consent or legal obligation to go and seek out affected parties, other than that it had advertised the fact it was promoting this local bill and had called for people to come forward if they had any issues they wanted to raise with the council.

So, having followed that process, the bill then came to Parliament and went to a select committee, which, again, advertised locally in the Gisborne district for people to raise any concerns or objections they had to the bill. But no one came forward, either from the affected iwi or on their behalf. We have to ask, having gone through that process, how reasonable it is for people then to raise their hands and say they are upset because no one consulted with them.

Quite obviously, the Gisborne District Council is concerned, and I assure the Committee that the mayor is making contact with the iwi to discuss their concerns. But I have no doubt that if this matter had been raised at the select committee, committee members themselves would have required the council to ensure that Rongowhakaata were satisfied and happy and had been consulted.

So there is a process to be followed, and it behoves everyone involved in a consultation process to play his or her part, and not to come along at the last minute. That is how one is accused of political grandstanding.

This little bill has no relevance to what may or may not have happened under the Public Works Act. It has no relevance to that, whatsoever. It is just a small bill, looking to validate uses of the Alfred Cox Park, so that the Gisborne District Council is operating within the law. I am pleased the majority of the Committee will support the bill going through.

I want to follow on from what Anne Tolley was saying about the consultation. This bill has been around for a very long time—at least, the recognition that we needed to clean up the law in relation to Alfred Cox Park has been around for a long time. To be fair, I think it is reasonable to expect that over the course of a decade people would be aware that this was happening, and that the consultation was going on. It was certainly reported in the Gisborne Herald a lot.

I have to also say that in Gisborne we do things very differently. In Gisborne there is not an “us and them” mentality—not at all. We pride ourselves on the fact that when we live in a fifty-fifty, Māori / non-Maori mix, the usual political grandstanding about this kind of thing tends to go away, because we all know each other, and we work really well together. No matter what goes on in the rest of the country about race relations, we tend to kind of shrug our shoulders and say well, living in a bicultural society like Gisborne, when Māori fails, Gisborne fails, and we get on with the reality of dealing with that.

Mr Flavell raised the point that during the first reading debate, Tariana Turia was not able to have a speaking slot. I also point out that I did not have a speaking slot in that debate, because of all the people who wanted to speak on the bill. Judy Turner did not have a speaking slot, and Phil Heatley, who had an interest in the bill, did not have a speaking slot. But all of us sought leave to be able to speak, because we felt strongly about it. There are ways and means in this Parliament to have our say, even if we are not, through normal processes, allocated that time.

I also note that the Māori Party at that time did not raise any concerns after the first reading of the bill, which would have been the time to do that. As we have heard from Anne Tolley, in that way, at the select committee stage, if the committee really felt that the proper level of consultation had not been carried out by the Gisborne District Council, the bill could have been sent back to the council.

I have to say, having met with Rongowhakaata about this bill, that they have no bones with its content, at all. They think it is a sensible bill—indeed, they enjoy going to the flea market, as do members of the Māori Party, on a regular basis. But they felt that, given they are just about to enter into their consultation with the Crown, it was a good vehicle for them to be able to raise their concerns about the history of Alfred Cox Park. OK, fair enough—they wanted to make a statement. But I think that to suggest Rongowhakaata are horribly opposed to this bill on its very merits, simply is not true. I said to Mr Stan Pardoe, whom I talked to, that this was fine. I said that I accept he had seen that as a good way of highlighting the iwi’s concerns before going into negotiations with the Crown. But it is important that this Committee knows that Rongowhakaata are not opposed to what this bill is trying to do. Indeed, they said it is particularly sensible.

But we also have to acknowledge the political nature of the fact that this concern was not raised after the first reading, when something could have been done about it. It has been raised now at this stage of the Committee, when we very much want to get through the bill so that when people from Rongowhakaata and the Māori Party go down to the flea market and hold their stalls, they are not doing so illegally.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson. I thank the members who have spoken just before me, in order to provide some clarification. I cannot comment on what happened before I came into the House; all I know is what is ahead of me right now.

The issue of consultation is something that affects all Māori, and we have a concern in the sense that the historical context tells us there are all sorts of consultations. Sometimes, though, consultation does not allow Māori to fully express their views and points of view. In fact, sometimes it does not even involve them. Thus, there is a concern. All we are asking is for the bill to be taken back, to get sign-off. I do not know whether Rongowhakaata agrees or disagrees with the bill, but the issue we are raising is that we should have the kōrero. We should have the kōrero and bring the sign-off back to the House, so that we can be convinced, as the party that defends the rights and advances the interests of Māori people in the best interests of the nation, we can say, yes, we did our part.

That is really the main issue here. Whether members of the Māori Party are or are not on the council, and whether there was a liaison officer, or whatever else there was, are really secondary issues. At the end of the day we are asking for the discussion to take place—that Rongowhakaata can advise us that the discussion has taken place, and that they are happy with it. We will certainly move towards supporting any initiative that allows our people to move forward in a positive manner. I will not talk about any select committee process, because I was not involved in it. But I do want to make the point that as a small party—as other smaller parties will know—we cannot cover all of the ground or every issue that comes up in this Parliament. All we can do is to respond to the matters that happen to arrive on our table, and that is what we are doing today.

So that is not to say this is the end of the world or that, politically, we are doing a grandstanding act. But it does say we will continue to defend the rights of Māori, and to ensure that our processes are robust and give Māori the opportunity to respond in a positive or negative manner. That, surely, is a part of their right.

I wish to thank members for their contribution, and I refer particularly to what my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell has just raised in respect of the discussion around this bill. As I said earlier, I can assure him that the mayor of the Gisborne District Council is seeking a meeting with Rongowhakaata, but that is not to impede the passage of this bill. My instructions from the council are that the bill is still to proceed through. If it is passed through the Committee stage today, it will come up for its third reading on the next members’ day. I thank all those members of the Local Government and Environment Committee who worked on this bill. It is a simple bill, but often simple bills are the most tricky ones. Working our way through the Reserves Act took some doing, so I thank them for their attention, and for their support of this bill.

A party vote was called for on the question that clauses 1 to 5 and the schedule be agreed to.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Can you give me some clarification, in terms of the Māori Party and the vote being taken, as to how we declare an abstention vote? Is it appropriate that we answer with a “No”, or do we ask for a party vote at the end of the vote? I ask for that clarification, please.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The vote can be carried on the voices, but there is provision for the member’s party to abstain, if it wants. In other words, the vote is carried and that is it, or the member can, if he so wishes, record an abstention—which is a party vote.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is a point of clarification. In recording a vote, do we do it after the vote has been carried, or do we call out “No”, then have the vote recorded as an abstention? Could you just give us the process, for clarification?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): If you want the vote to be recorded, when I put the question you say “Party vote called for”, and in that way you will have the opportunity for an abstention.

I move, That the report be adopted.