Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill

I move, That the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill be now read a second and a third time. This is a bit of a change of mood from the previous bill that Parliament has dealt with on this members’ day. It is my great pleasure to bring before the House for the second and third reading the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill. My first desire is to thank members for the way that they have expedited this process. I have to pass on the gratitude of a number of people in that regard—including the gratitude of the agricultural and pastoral association itself, and of the individual who will develop the Invercargill showground. I will talk a little more about that later; he has paid a deposit and has been waiting for over a year for this bill to be progressed. So those people send their thanks to this House.

If this bill were to have gone through the normal process, it would have taken months. I introduced this bill in the last sitting period of Parliament. It went to the Primary Production Committee, which met in the adjournment. Members of the select committee went through the full process—they advertised, and they sought to get submissions and feedback. It was not a shonky job. I assured them that everything was in order and that there were no issues, but the select committee wanted to do its own thing. I congratulate the members of the committee on that. But having decided to put the bill through the process, they expedited it in the best way possible—they advertised, sought a response, got a departmental report, and then deliberated on the bill in the adjournment. My thanks also go to the House for accepting leave to complete all stages tonight, and I am absolutely genuine in those thanks.

One or two people have asked me what this bill is about. For the benefit of those members who are in their first term in Parliament, I say that empowering bills are not something to be taken lightly. I can recall, in my first term in the House, having to speak for 10 minutes, without notice, on a Palmerston North playground empowering bill, which was something of a challenge. If a land title is covered by an endowment, we do not take that lightly. Our forebears set up around the country a whole range of endowment processes—some of them on rental land that generated revenue for harbour boards, agricultural and pastoral associations, and school-grounds. There were a whole range of mechanisms. Our forebears did that because they wanted the protection provided by an endowment, and we should not ignore that. In this particular case, we have gone through the process properly. To advance a private bill, there is a prescribed process. Anybody who looks at Appendix C of the Standing Orders will see that there is a very diligent and prescribed process to make sure we get things right—and in this case that has been done.

What is this bill about? I gave a commentary on the bill in the first reading, and I will repeat it for the benefit of those people who were not there for that—and I apologise to those for whom this is repetition, but it is quite important to do so. Agricultural and pastoral associations are part of the fabric of rural New Zealand. Their shows have been the expos of the rural community for, in many instances, well over 100 years. We are well past the centenary celebrations of the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association. A and P shows have been the expos where livestock are judged, have provided social occasions for meeting people, and have been the venue where new machinery, new cultivars, and new genetics are shown—you name it, it happens, commercially and agriculturally. It is a “town meets country” kind of arrangement.

In Invercargill, the agricultural and pastoral association showground is almost in the centre of the city. It is a valuable property, but essentially it has been used for only one major show once a year, and also for one or two stud fairs. So there is a heavy over-investment in a property that could be used in a much better way. The Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association has sought to go into partnership with the Ascot Park Raceway, where there are grandstands, grounds, and better parking. The raceway is in a part of the town that suits people much better than the showground. The agricultural and pastoral association has a contract with a developer who will turn the showground into an industrial estate. Not only will that occur but a bypass will be created from the north of the city, through the city, to connect to the south of the city. It will take heavy traffic that is going to the port, the freezing works, or wherever else it may be in the south—there are fertiliser works, chip mills, the port, and a range of heavy industry there. The transport to and from those entities has had to go pretty much through the centre of town, so this development will create a bypass that will take that heavy traffic out of the centre of the town.

Suffice to say that this bill has a great deal of support, not just from the agricultural and pastoral association and not just from the developer, who has an opportunity to do something in a very prosperous and growing provincial town in New Zealand: Invercargill, a place where dreams are possible. Burt Munro comes from there. We have a great mayor, Tim Shadbolt, and all those things. Now we are going to have the very best agricultural and pastoral showground in the country, in association with the Ascot Park Raceway.

There are plans to do some significant things at the raceway. Sheep pens and a selling pavilion will have to be developed, but there is also going to be an equestrian centre. I am not sure exactly how much will be achieved out of the sale of the showground property, but it is in the order of $4 to $5 million, and that money will be ploughed back into developing and extending the Ascot Park Raceway with an equestrian centre that will not have a parallel anywhere in New Zealand. Invercargill can do this. Members will know that we have one of the only three covered velodromes in the southern hemisphere. With a population of 50,000, we have a whole lot of things going for us. This centre will be a valuable extension of the indoor arenas that are available in the south, and it will happen when this bill is passed. Of course, having an equestrian centre on a raceway park, where horses are involved in a range of things, will add opportunities not just for racing, show-jumping, dressage, pony clubs, and riding for the disabled—all of those things—but it will be another large expo venue. The opportunities are endless, once this bill is actually passed. So I say to the House that there is a wide degree of support to see it progressed.

Another reason the community is keen to see this bill advanced quite quickly is that there will have to be some applications to local funding agencies—the licensing trust, the community trust, and various other agencies—for funding to do this development. As time has gone by we have just about passed the deadlines for those applications; in fact, we have passed one of them. The agricultural and pastoral association wants to progress those applications for funding as well, so that the development can take place.

I conclude by giving my sincere thanks to the House for its assistance in expediting the process of getting this bill through. It is an important thing that we recognise endowment land, and we are not taking that cheaply. But in this case, the requirements of drafting and presenting the bill to the House saw no mischief. The select committee went out and readvertised, but there was not one submission. There was unanimity and support. So I can only say to the House that this is its finest hour. This bill has no mischief; everybody wants it. The House has risen to the occasion and has expedited it through in a very earnest way. I thank the House.

I take a very brief call in support of the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill. Mr Roy has very ably explained this bill, which is very important. Given the fact that the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association is an asset-rich organisation but does not have the resources to actually maintain its grounds, I think it is important that the House should support this bill. I also want to say, as deputy chair of the Primary Production Committee, that as part of the process of calling for submissions and deliberating on the bill, we did not receive any submissions on it. Further, I say that Wayne Harpur, the local candidate for the Labour Party at the last election, is also very supportive of this bill. I am delighted to support the bill and it has been supported by the select committee, as well.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou. Tātou e noho nei i te Whare. The progress of the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill has, for some, been seen as a simple formality. It is as if it is no big deal. So I thought it would be a good idea to do some research so that all of us here, and indeed those listening at home, understand that there is a history to this bill.

Not far from here is the Alexander Turnbull Library, where people can spend hours to their hearts’ content studying Aotearoa—our history, our experiences, and our people. The historical atlas maps held in that library show that as a result of pre-1865 land purchases, the total percentage of Southland land in Māori ownership was a whole 1 percent out of a possible 34 million acres. It was land literally available at a steal. In August 1853 the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Walter Mantell, obtained over 7 million acres of land, as part of the Murihiku deal, for a mere £2,600. Comparatively speaking, it was a better deal than ever before.

Some 5 years earlier, in June 1848, Kemp had transacted a purchase with Ngāi Tahu of 20 million acres, the largest block of land ever bought by the Crown, for a bargain. It was snapped up at a piffling £2,000. One hundred and fifty years later, the Waitangi Tribunal was to conclude that the purchases of Mantell, Kemp, and their ilk, were, by any standards, totally inadequate. The tribunal’s 1991 Ngāi Tahu report concluded: “It is not stating the position too strongly to say that the effect of the Crown’s niggardly allocation was to ‘ghetto-ise’ Ngāi Tahu on small uneconomic units on which they could do little more than struggle to survive”.

Forty years after Kemp’s transactions, Mackay’s 1886 investigation into the extent of landlessness amongst Māori in Southland gave “a depressing account of poverty, listlessness and despair amongst Ngai Tahu at the time”. This is the past, the present, and the future in which the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill sits—an iwi ghettoised, economic arrangements from which the people could do little more than struggle to survive, and a people confronted with poverty, listlessness, and despair. Yet a century and a half later, those same people are at risk of being re-ghettoised from the passage of the legislation we are discussing today.

The Hansard states that Kāi Tahu o Murihiku had been neither consulted nor informed as part of the negotiations. Te Ao Marama, which encompasses expertise with iwi liaison within the rohe, had not been approached. The relevant papatipu rūnaka, the tribal councils of Kāi Tahu, were not part of the feedback loop. We raised those issues at the first reading of the bill, and urged the House to recognise the importance of consultation with iwi on resource management issues. Indeed, given that Ngāi Tahu are mana whenua, it would be appropriate to ask them what they want to be consulted on, and how, when, by whom, and why.

The Māori Party wants, however, to put on record our appreciation of the way in which the sponsor of the bill, Eric Roy, responded to the issues we raised at the first reading. I commend the way in which the member for Invercargill received our advice and, indeed, made a point of standing to give an explanation to the whole House. Such generosity and genuine commitment to acknowledging the concerns of the constituency can only be positive, as we now move quickly to advance the bill.

When I last addressed the House on this bill I spoke of the proud history the people of Murihiku have as entrepreneurs—their active roles in the flax trade and the whaling industry, and in supplying food to the ships. A contemporary example of their innovation is the Hīkoi Fatigue Kete project, which was developed by Ōraka-Aparima Health and Social Services in order to raise awareness amongst Southland Māori about the dangers of driver fatigue. The kete is packed full of goodies for avoiding fatigue, including chocolate treats, barley sugars, a first aid kit, a map of New Zealand to help plan breaks, a water bottle, and ample safety information. I do wonder whether we could commission that organisation to provide a House fatigue kete to help avoid fatigue during our extended sessions, but I have been persuaded otherwise—the robust debate and stimulating interplay we experience on a daily basis would make such a kete redundant.

The point I am making is that Southland Māori are often required to make long trips on a regular basis. The fatigue kete is a novel concept that meets the needs of the constituency in a practical way. Therefore, I suggest that in the long trip ahead for the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association, as it moves to sell the property and relocate to Ascot Park Raceway, it might just consider that mana whenua could be an enthusiastic and committed project partner.

Despite the context of colonisation and land alienation, despite the hardship experienced by the predominantly landless people, and despite the final insult of not being consulted at an early stage in the progress of this bill, mana whenua have been munificent in overlooking those offences, and have worked productively for the future of Invercargill and its people. The Māori Party is now satisfied that not only have mana whenua been actively involved in the existence of the legislation but also the promoter of the bill himself, Mr Eric Roy, listened to our concerns and has taken the need for consultation into account.

We are happy to support the bill at its second and third readings. Finally, we recommend that the ideal outcome of the parliamentary debate might be that the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association, for the sake of its further empowerment, also considers the opportunity for mana whenua to be involved. Kia ora tātou.

Bill read a second time and a third time.