Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee. This is an issue that has been at the heart of dealings between whānau, hapū, local government, and public entities. This bill—[Interruption]

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that we have just had a personal vote and that people are moving around, but because this bill is very important to my heart and my soul I would appreciate it if members could move quickly so that I can deliver the sort of speech that will make my people—in particular, our Māori Party—proud this evening.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I think the member’s point of order has had the desired effect. He has the attention of the House.

This bill is the first that we, as the Māori Party, have prepared and finally seen in the House under our own banner—ī a! The bill was drawn up after the Foreshore and Seabed Act (Repeal) Bill, which as we know has been set in abeyance while it is considered by a review panel. This bill arriving here tonight is a significant event for our party, so I acknowledge all of those in our team who have given advice, especially Judge Heta Hingston, the former judge of the Māori Land Court.

If one were to ask the purpose of this bill, one can read in the explanatory note that it is “to ensure that former owners of Māori or general land taken or acquired by the Crown for the purposes of a public work are given the first right of refusal to purchase that land where the Crown no longer requires it for the public work for which it was originally taken and/or acquired.” The bill covers a complex area, which none the less has had a long-lasting impact on our whānau, hapū, and iwi, and indeed on many New Zealanders. In essence, we are talking about people who have borne the cost of the land being taken by either so-called agreement or compulsion.

I say, for those who do not know, that the origins of the 1981 Public Works Act emerged out of English law. The 1882 and 1928 Public Works Acts were the road maps to developing the infrastructure of what the colonists thought was their new country. There have been numerous claims to the Waitangi Tribunal resulting from the historical use of public works legislation to dispossess Māori of their land. Agents of the Crown have endeavoured throughout the years to come to grips with the problems of land taken under the Public Works Act and no longer used for the purpose for which it was taken. The last big round of consultation was held throughout 2001, and resulted in a series of policy options that appear to have been “deferred”, or filed away in the back drawer. This is an issue, then, that has been parked for many years, yet an issue that has never ever been resolved.

When this bill was drawn from the ballot in July 2007, it became obvious within hours that the acquisition of land under the Public Works Act was still a hotly contested issue. We heard about two blocks of land on Panepane Point on Matakana Island in the Tauranga area that are currently owned by the Western Bay of Plenty District Council, which acquired the land through the Act. We heard about a maze of paper roads that run through Te Urewera. We learnt about the impact of the legislation on the whānau associated with the Paraparaumu Airport lands, Te Whānau a Te Ngārara Inc. The airport land was taken by the Government under the Public Works Act to build a Second World War aerodrome. It was then sold to private interests by tender, with the tender limited to people participating in the aviation industry, for goodness’ sake!

At home in Rotorua we had the same concerns, when in the early 1960s about 81 hectares of the hapū land that was the paramount tribal settlement of Ngāti Uenukukōpako was taken under the Public Works Act for the establishment of an aerodrome. Claimants from Ngāti Tūrangitukua have asked for the mandatory return of land that the Crown took under the Public Works Act in order to develop the town of Tūrangi in the 1960s. There has been a call from the New Plymouth hapū Ngāti Te Whiti against plans for council-owned land near the Te Hēnui cemetery. Ngāti Te Whiti Ahikā have petitioned the New Plymouth District Council that the site is ancestral land and should be returned to the tangata whenua. There is also the case of the land overlooking the harbour at Te Atatū. The land was acquired by the Auckland Harbour Board in the 1950s under the Public Works Act for development as a deepwater port. The Waitakere City Council set aside part of the land for a marae project in 2002, but the actual site is encompassed within land that the original descendants of that whenua believe should have been offered back in the 1990s to the original owners.

Further north, near Moerewa, there is the case of Ōrauta School, which was established on Crown land reserved for Māori school use. In 2005 an occupation was held by local Māori, who stated that Māori had a right to the school’s occupation and use for educational purposes, as gazetted in 1940 when the land was taken under the Public Works Act for a native school. At that point the Ministry of Education decided to offer back the land to its original owners, a move that we warmly welcomed but that is not necessarily universally applied.

In my own tribal nation of Ngāti Rangiwewehi in Rotorua the Public Works Act is a sore point—firstly, because it took land; and, secondly, because in taking the land it fenced off our people from a key piece of our history. Taniwha Springs is a reference to our taniwha Pekehauā, our kaitiaki and our guardian. Fresh water gushes from his lair; that place just happens to be on the land that was subsequently taken in 1966 by the public works legislation. Taking the land allowed for access to water to feed the township of Rotorua, but nothing went back to our people.

These examples are just some of the many examples of land that was taken under the Public Works Act for a specific purpose and is no longer used for that purpose. The examples show the distaste many people have for this Act. Of course, it is not only Māori who have suffered from this policy. I give a case in point: the Independent Financial Review on 1 December 2006 reported a case involving a Pākehā family—the Lambie family in Auckland, to be precise—who had their farmland compulsorily taken by Auckland International Airport in the 1970s. The crux of this matter is that whether the land was confiscated or taken under the Public Works Act, the original owners want their land returned, whether it is private or Government-owned land. This bill, then, attempts to respond to these longstanding grievances.

Regarding the types of arrangement for the offer back of, and payment of compensation for, acquired land to Māori, there are some strong recommendations from both the submissions in the Review of the Public Works Act and the Waitangi Tribunal. In the 2001 review, Māori wanted land to be offered back in all cases, preferably at less than the current market value or at no cost. There was also a call for compensation, because with that land the acquiring authorities had also acquired the benefit of that land use. We expected that the Crown would act in good faith, be well informed, and redress any grievances in a timely manner, but, as the history record proves, the Crown has failed to respect Treaty interests, and in doing so has neglected the need to recognise and protect the rangatiratanga of the claimants who have been affected by the legislation.

The explanatory note goes on to state: “The Bill also provides for solatium payments to be made for loss of land and/or opportunities associated with the use of that land where land was acquired or alienated for a public works use for which it was not actually used. Where the former owners of the land are deceased, these rights may be exercised by their descendants.” The fact that the land is offered back generally at market value is often inappropriate when land has been acquired for many years and has appreciated considerably. Although the nature of any improvement of the land might be assessed at current market value, we know that many claimants have recommended that a base value of the land be taken as at the date of its being taken. This is particularly so where breaches of the Treaty have occurred in relation to original takings, which should be a mandatory consideration in the assessment of the value.

Usually, land has been developed for the public good, and generally the community has benefited. Yet despite making this contribution, Māori have missed out on the opportunity for development of their land and then have had to try to purchase the land at the current value, which has increased due to the developments by others around the land itself. There are many instances where land has been sold to the Crown for a specific purpose and only for that purpose. This bill, according to the explanatory note, “proposes land sold to the Crown should be offered back to the original owners and/or their descendants.” It is also proposed that the land taken under the Public Works Act, and no longer used for the purpose for which it was acquired, not be land banked to settle Treaty of Waitangi claims. The Public Works Act has been responsible for a vast amount of State acquisition of Māori land. Indeed, some would call that the State-sponsored theft of tribal whenua. Every opportunity should be taken to return this land to the original owners if the public purpose has expired.

In closing, I and the Māori Party would like to thank in advance all of the parties in the House for their—I am sure—support for this particular bill, and for the opportunity that will come with its going to public submission and through the parliamentary process. I very much appreciate the support given by members to the bill. Tēnā tātou katoa.

I rise to support the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill. I congratulate Te Ururoa Flavell on his important speech, which marked the very first member’s bill for the Māori Party. This bill concerns the handling of land taken by the Crown under the Public Works Act 1981. Mr Flavell and the Māori Party are particularly concerned about Māori land. Mr Flavell gave us a whole kete of examples of where land has been taken and is now being used for a different purpose from what it was intended for originally. This bill also concerns the land of Europeans, Pākehā, and all nationalities in our country.

This bill has two purposes. The first is to make sure that the former owners of land taken under the Public Works Act are given the first right of refusal to purchase land that is no longer required for the purpose it was taken for. It is also to provide for solatium payments where land taken for a purpose is not actually used for that purpose. The first right of refusal for original landholders is already provided for in section 40 of the Public Works Act, but this bill amends section 40 and provides more certainty for landowners. It deals with a whole series of different scenarios. The Public Works Act introduced a new regime to protect landowners and their ownership rights. It required that when the Commissioner of Works—whose equivalent now is the chief executive of Land Information New Zealand—or a local authority was disposing of land no longer required for public works, the land was offered back to the original owners. When the former owner had died, the land was to be offered back to his or her successor. Then, finally, it would be offered to the public for public sale.

I have seen situations in central Christchurch where that has happened very successfully in the case of Pākehā land. One example is when Christchurch Girls’ High School moved from Cranmer Square in the central city to a new site across the park, and the properties around the school that had been taken under the Public Works Act for school use were offered back to the original owners at market value. My local doctor had had his surgery next to the school taken 20 years previously, and he was offered the property back. In actual fact, it was his son who negotiated the sale. In that case, the law worked well. But nothing is ever simple. There have been many situations where original landowners who may have expected the opportunity to get their land back have not been able to get their land back.

There are a number of examples where land that has been taken for a specific purpose, such as railways or roading, then is no longer required for that purpose. Under the current law the Crown or the local authority may retain that land to use for another public purpose, or the Crown or local authority can transfer that land to another public entity as long as that will be used for a public purpose without triggering the offer-back provisions. The result is that although the land was taken for a dedicated purpose and is no longer required for that purpose, the original owner still has no opportunity to regain ownership. The original owner still has no opportunity to regain ownership despite the fact that the land is not being used for the purpose that it has been taken for, and despite the fact that the purpose for which the land was taken formed part of the agreement between the owner, the Crown, and the local authority. The use of that land for another purpose is, arguably, in breach of this agreement. Furthermore, the original owner does not get any compensation for his or her lost opportunity arising from the land being taken for a purpose for which it is not being used. There have been suggestions that sometimes the land has been sold on to Crown entities, and that the use of that land is for profit with no benefit returns to the original owners.

In this bill, section 40 of the Public Works Act is amended to deal with those issues. The first amendment removes the ability for public bodies to transfer the land to another public purpose without triggering the offer-back provisions of the Public Works Act. The second removes the provision that land need not be offered back if it is impractical, unreasonable, or unfair to do so or if there has been a significant change in the character of the land since it was acquired. The third part of the amendment requires land to be given back at no cost if compensation was not paid when the land was originally taken for the public purpose.

Most New Zealanders agree that the Crown must act in good faith. It is potentially in breach of good faith to take land for a specific purpose and not use it for that purpose, and then not return it. In the case of Māori, it is a breach of the good-faith partnership established under the Treaty of Waitangi. The second part of this bill provides for solatium payments in cases where the land is not used for the public works for which it was taken. The original owners or their successors may apply to the Land Valuation Tribunal for a solatium payment from the Crown for the loss of use and the loss of opportunities associated with the loss of that land. The bill requires that when accessing the amount of solatium payment, regard must be taken of the means of the former owners and the circumstances surrounding the compulsory acquisition of such land.

The Government will be supporting this bill through its first reading and will allow it to go to a select committee for more detailed consideration. There has been agitation for a change in the Public Works Act for some time. There was a review in 2001 and there has been a lot of talk, a lot of papers, and a lot of proposal about change, but nothing has happened since then.

💬 Paul Quinn: Since when?

Since 2001.

💬 Paul Quinn: Who was in Government?

I believe it was a Labour Government. We recognise that there are a number of significant concerns about this bill in its current form. However, important issues have been raised and they deserve the consideration of the select committee process. We encourage the public and Māori in particular to make submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee. This is an important issue for Māori and for Pākehā, and it is important to get it right. We support this bill. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Before I call the next member, I observe that the next calls are all 5 minutes long. If they wish, I will give the members a warning bell at 4 minutes.

I rise to make a contribution on the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the member in charge of the bill, Te Ururoa Flavell, for his efforts. I register the intention of Labour to support the first reading of the bill. I also note that the bill will be sent to the Local Government and Environment Committee, and I support that intention. In terms of the issues that will be raised within the context of this bill, I think it will be useful for the select committee to hear them.

The intent of the bill is to rectify longstanding grievances, which have already been discussed by the sponsoring member. Those grievances are about how under the Public Works Act land has been acquired for specific purposes but has been retained long after those purposes have expired, or perhaps some of the purposes have changed over time. I know from a number of local examples throughout the country that there are situations where land acquired has not been used for the initial purpose for which it was acquired and has been the subject of a number of Treaty of Waitangi claims. The point has been well made that the bill will raise a number of issues in that regard.

The bill also applies to general land, and there are numerous examples throughout our various communities and cities of very important and serious issues to do with the way in which the Public Works Act has or has not achieved its purpose.

The bill raises a number of questions. Given that I have such a short time in which to speak, I want to put some of those questions before the House. I hope that in the fullness of time and through the submission process the select committee may make some useful amendments in support of the intent of this bill in order to help it achieve its purpose. In that regard, the first issue that I see is the definition of “the Crown” and who that signifies. If one looks at the way the Public Works Act works one sees that the definition should include requiring authorities, it should include local government, it should include Crown entities, and it should most definitely include Crown agencies. That is the first point.

The second point is in terms of the solatium payments. When Matt Robson initiated the review of the Public Works Act in 2001 a number of submissions stated that the issue of the solatium payments should be considered further in order to broaden the implication of the solatium payment. I understand that the intent of the bill aims to achieve that.

I want to raise for further consideration by this House—and I hope it comes up through the submission process—the way in which solatium payments will be negotiated on a case by case basis with landowners. There is some indication in the bill that the circumstances in which lands were acquired should be taken into account when the solatium payment is decided. But more important, the issue of lost opportunities that have or have not occurred on that land should be taken into account. That is a really important point, because some lands that were acquired for a particular purpose have been used and then no longer utilised, and development on those lands has not been taken into account—for example, lands taken for education purposes, which may have buildings on them; and lands taken for railway purposes, which may have some developments on them. So that is an important issue that should be raised, and I hope it comes up at the select committee.

The last matter I raise for the consideration of the House, which may be answered further on down the track, is the application of this bill with regard to current claims before the Waitangi Tribunal. Is it the intention that this bill will supersede current claims before the Waitangi Tribunal that are about issues to do with the Public Works Act, or is the intention that the claims process for the Waitangi Tribunal and the process proposed by the bill will operate in conjunction with each other? I do not think those questions could be answered fully in the House in this regard, but they should be pursued further at the select committee.

Without further ado, I again acknowledge Te Ururoa and his fine efforts. I hope the select committee draws on some of the findings of the 2001 review, because they will be a useful contribution to the consideration of the bill.

It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on this particular Māori Party member’s bill, the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill.

I reinforce what the previous speaker from this side of the House, Nicky Wagner, said and confirm that this side of the House will support sending this bill to a select committee. We will support the first reading. Having said that, I say that I stand for a reason, which is that I have had firsthand experience in respect of Treaty of Waitangi settlements around this Public Works Act. Although I can sympathise, I guess, with the previous speaker, Nanaia Mahuta, I think that in reality she misses some of the actual detail, because they are not the real issues.

I think it was timely that during question time there was a question that I could almost have asked myself; in fact, by some sort of divine guidance, it was asked of the Minister for Land Information by a member of the Māori Party. It was pointed out in that question—notwithstanding the difficulties that this particular Act has caused Māori in terms of their Treaty settlements, which I want to share with members very shortly—that the Government of the day between 1999 and 2008 had three separate reviews of this Act, and each time it parked it. Now members of the Opposition stand here and say what a great thing this bill is. Their behaviour is just another example of procrastination, of deferring, and of setting up a committee to review the committee’s work, to review another report, because they were spellbound and had no idea what they should do. I thought it was ironic that that question should be asked on the very day that this bill comes before us. It is a timely reminder about the previous Government’s lack of work on, understanding of, and commitment to these very real issues that face Māori in terms of Treaty settlements.

I want to say why this bill is important to this Government and to me personally.

💬 Hon Parekura Horomia: Who did your settlement?

Ngāti Awa. I could speak for days on this, but, sadly, I have only another 3 minutes left. Ngāti Awa, in fact, had land declared surplus under section 40 in 1999. Ngāti Awa had to go through two Land Information New Zealand reports and two High Court judicial reviews to prove that the Whakatāne District Council was not the rightful body to which the land should go. The Land Information New Zealand report had decreed that it should go to that council. That is the sort of expense that Māori Treaty claimants had to go to under that Government, because it was unprepared to stand by the principles that its members now espouse. That is the expense that Ngāti Awa had to go to in order to prove its claim. Do members know that even now we are still waiting for a third report?

💬 Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Shh!

Well, it is just that Parekura is speaking so loudly. We are now waiting for a third report. I could go on for days, because I know about section 40 and section 50 of the Public Works Act. I know everything about this matter. I am just glad that we are supporting the opportunity to send the bill to a select committee to discuss all these issues—the issues that are dear to the Māori Party, but also the issues that are dear to other Māori groups that are confronting the Public Works Act. I am very pleased that this Government is getting on with the job. It reaffirms once again its commitment to action and to getting on with the job. I support the Māori Party in sending this bill to a select committee. Thank you.

If Mr Quinn and his party were so enthusiastic about the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill, if they wanted to see action, and if they wanted to get right behind it, then it would be a Government bill.

We have seen already tonight, on a members’ day, how long it takes for a member’s bill to get through this place. Tonight we have been debating a bill that was first tabled in this House back in 2005. This bill came out of the ballot—here is the press release from Mr Flavell—on 26 July 2007. That is when it came out of the ballot. But by the nature of member’s bills, here we are in 2009 having the first reading of this bill. If Mr Quinn was not being so disingenuous about it, if he was serious about it, and if he did not speak with two faces on it, then he would be encouraging his colleagues in National to get behind this bill and make it a Government bill. It is fine for that member to stand up and say that the previous administration did this, and that the previous administration did that. You are in Government now. You are in charge. Get on with it—govern. Do your job. Do your job, man!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Hey! Hey!

My apologies, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker; I did not mean to bring you into the debate.

This bill is quite simple. I had no intention whatsoever to speak for long on this bill. The aims of this bill are quite clear and simple, and the Labour Party supports them. There are two aspects to this bill. The first aspect aims to give the land’s previous owners the first right of refusal should public land become available. The second aspect aims to offer some recourse to those people whose land was acquired under the Public Works Act but was not used for the purpose for which it was acquired.

Potentially, an interesting situation will soon arise around what happens to State-owned land that is used for defence purposes. The Government has said that there is a possibility that some land used for defence purposes will be privatised. The Government has talked about selling off the land to private owners, then leasing it back from them. This is a good, National Party ideological position: to sell it off, then lease it back. But should this bill go through, there may be a flaw in that plan, if the original owners of that land want to take the land back. My colleague Nanaia Mahuta raised several questions that will, hopefully, be addressed in the select committee. I would like to add that situation to the mix as a potential tripping point should the Government continue with its planned sale of defence land. But with regard to the bill’s first reading and its referral to the select committee, the Labour Party is very happy to support it.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa. The Green Party is extremely supportive of the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill. We congratulate the Māori Party on its first member’s bill. We are extremely supportive of the kaupapa that Te Ururoa Flavell has brought to this House.

It is often said that whatungarongaro te tangata, toitū te whenua. People perish, but the land remains. In essence, the land does remain, but thanks to the Public Works Act and a large number of other instruments of colonial rule, 96 percent of Aotearoa was removed from tangata whenua to benefit Crown objectives from the mid-1800s to this day. This bill seeks to patch up a jigsaw of justice that will never be complete, but each piece has the potential to build a more harmonious picture.

We have been looking at clause 4, “Purposes”. There are many things in the clause that we feel are very good, and we are sure that the select committee process will make them even better. We are a bit confused, however, in relation to the wording about the first right of refusal for former owners of land taken under the Public Works Act to purchase back the land when the Crown no longer requires it. The Green Party believes that that provision is a little bit mean. A thief or a conman should not be able to come back to the victim many years later and offer to sell back the stolen items at current market rates, saying “Here you are; I have brought back your treasure. It has been a bit damaged, but it is worth heaps compared with when I stole it from you, so now you can pay me at current market rates. But hey, you get the first choice!”. I recognise that the bill will not solve all of these problems, but at least it makes a start in the right direction.

I support the comments that the date on which something was taken should be the time when the price is set. Virtually all the reports of the Waitangi Tribunal make reference to the effect of the Public Works Act in facilitating the taking of land from the tangata whenua in Aotearoa. In some instances, as clause 4 seeks to redress, compensation was not paid at the time. For example, there was compulsory acquisition of Ahuriri Lagoon from Ngāti Kahungunu back in 1851, and no money was paid. Whatever the land was used for—whether or not it was used for the supposed purpose at the time—we need to give it back and celebrate the clauses in this bill, which will give it back with no cost.

Clause 4(c) is also vital. The descendants of those who were disenfranchised must be recognised and allowed to have their birthright back. Paul Quinn said he could talk for days about the many instances of disenfranchised descendants—and I am sure we all hoped that he would—but I will talk briefly about Hauraki, a place where I come from and live. In Hauraki, the Māori trust board made a submission to the Local Government Rates Inquiry in May 2007 in which it pointed out that, both willingly by gift and unwillingly by the Public Works Act, Hauraki Māori have made significant contributions to community infrastructure and facilities, such as roads, schools, churches, and halls. Thus, Hauraki Māori have contributed to the public good but have very rarely benefited from that public good. They still pay rates but have not received justice yet under the Public Works Act.

The Green Party supports this bill because it is a way of overturning a process that has been going on in this country for a very long time. First, there were the missionary and the musket. Then there were the measles and the flu. Then there were the gunboat and the Native Land Court. And then there were the Public Works Act and many of its unpleasant legal colleagues. This bill is a good start in terms of overcoming that process.

I will also talk about another example that is dear to my heart: Tai Rāwhiti, Tūranganui a Kiwa. I went to the Tūranganui a Kiwa claim. On the last day of the claim I was the only Pākehā in the room who was not a lawyer. One of the problems we have with this situation is that so few Pākehā have engaged seriously in understanding what has gone on in the removal of the rights of Māori, because they do not attend or participate in processes that are about Te Tiriti o Waitangi and about justice for all of us, not just justice for Māori. Let us take Watson Park, a sportsground in the middle of Gisborne. Watson Park is the whenua of Rongowhakaata. It was taken by the Crown for a Pākehā cemetery for Gisborne City. It was then not used for a cemetery; it was used as a rubbish dump, then as a playground and sportsground, and now the Gisborne District Council would like to toss it back to tangata whenua, to Rongowhakaata, but at market rates.

We need these sorts of bills to redress these issues, and I hope the select committee will make this bill even stronger. We support the bill’s purposes. We vote for this bill as another step towards reconciliation plus resources, which together become a recipe for justice. Tēnā koutou katoa.

Before I call the next speaker I remind members that they are not to bring the Speaker into the debate. We have now had a number of speeches where it is about “you”—“You did this” and “You did that”. Well, the Speaker did none of those things. I remind members that such references should be in the third person. It is difficult, I know, but we need to improve.

I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to support the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill in its first reading.

Sadly, I am in the position we often find ourselves in of having to question whether the Green Party members have actually read the bill that is being debated. We have just heard a passionate speech about land being stolen, then sold back at market rates. Well, unless I am much mistaken, clause 5(2)(d) requires that any land that has been taken for which compensation was not paid must be offered back to the owners or their successors at “no cost where the Crown originally acquired or alienated the land for no compensation;”. I find myself on the same side as the Green Party, but, once again, it would be really good if those members were to read the bills that they speak to.

The reason I have got up without having planned to do so is that I thought the member in charge of the bill referred to the Raglan golf course issue—

💬 Dr Russel Norman: Read the bill—you’re talking about 4(a). It’s not that hard!

Well, I just did. The member should have a look. Clause 5(2)(d) inserts a new section 40(2)(ba) into the Public Works Act.

I come from the generation for whom the Raglan golf course land confiscation and the consequences that flowed from it were a huge issue. For the benefit of those younger members who are not entirely familiar with the issue, the land that became the Raglan golf course was taken from the Māori owners during the Second World War for use as an airfield, which was never built. I understand that the late Eva Rickard, from the end of the war until her death, agitated furiously and stoically—

💬 Hone Harawira: Successfully.

—and successfully for the return of the land. At the time I often found myself in a minority of one. A lot of the Pākehā whom I knew said things like: “Well, why should we give it back to them? It will just grow lupins when the Māoris own it.” I used to say that that was their choice—it was their land. I said that if they wanted to grow lupins on it, or kūmara on it, or whatever—or just look at it—it was their business. But people used to say that it was great land. That whole injustice went on for years. It caused huge dissension between Māori and Pākehā, and it caused incredible resentment—and rightly so. Why on earth should it have been any kind of issue whether the land would be returned? It was an absolute no-brainer. It should have been a no-brainer, but Muldoon maintained for years the argument that it would be used only to grow lupins.

I see this bill as a no-brainer. It requires that land that was bought or taken from people be offered back to them first, at market rates if it had been bought at market rates. I cannot quite see how the Greens could object to that. If land was stolen with no compensation, then it is to be offered back; that is how I read the bill, but if I am wrong, we will find out at the select committee.

ACT has great pleasure in supporting this bill being referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. Tēnā koutou e te whānau. The Minister for Land Information revealed today a staggering list of delays and deferrals associated with the many reviews of the Public Works Act, the most recent of which attracted 90 submissions from Māori—more than 30 percent of all submissions received. This clearly shows the level of interest that Māori have in this issue, and is perhaps why so many delays and deferrals have been caused by the Crown—if Māori are interested, then let us do nothing. Or perhaps it is because challenging the compulsory acquisition of Māori land is an issue best swept under the carpet, to be cleaned up by another Government further down the track or to be revisited when Māori are too tired to fight any longer.

If we look through the submissions from the 2001 review, we see that the concerns that have arisen from public works legislation going right back to 1864 have torn at the very soul of Māoridom and created a clear perception that the many institutions of Government have worked against Māori in the past and offer little hope for making a difference in the future. The challenge for the Māori Party was that any review of the public works legislation had to be based around the notion of redressing those injustices and re-establishing the connection between tangata whenua and whenua lost.

The issue of protecting Māori land is not new. My thoughts go back to 1975, when Te Roopu o te Matakite was formed to fight the continuing alienation of Māori land, and when Whina Cooper led the nation in a historic march from Te Rerenga Wairua to Wellington, under the banner of “Not one acre more”, to raise public awareness of the massive loss of Māori land and to signal the determination of Māori not to accept the continuance of that situation. I think of the 5,000 marchers who carried the hopes of the Māori nation, of the petitions signed by 60,000 people, and of the memorial of rights signed by 200 of our kaumātua and kuia.

We all know about the Māori land struggles that have been debated in this House on many, many occasions in the past. There have been countless reviews and petitions to Parliament, tablings of proceedings of the Waitangi Tribunal, and debates about the righteous occupations that aimed to restore Māori ownership of Māori land that was taken improperly by the Crown right throughout the country. Most notably and most recently, this has occurred in Raglan, Bastion Point, and, even more recently, in Tūwharetoa, Hauraki, and Ngāti Kahu.

I congratulate my good Ngāpuhi brother Te Ururoa Flavell on the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill, which responds to the people’s call that enough is enough, that too much land has been lost into Crown hands, and that it is time, through this bill, to begin to right those wrongs and redress, in a small way, that massive imbalance. The bill targets section 40 of the Public Works Act, which deals with the disposal of surplus land. The current provisions of section 40 do nothing to protect the interests of those who want their land returned. Until section 40 of the Public Works Act is strengthened, those interests will continue to be ignored.

I am proud today to speak for the Māori Party, to speak in support of the member for Waiariki, and to speak on behalf of all those whānau, hapū, and iwi who have waited for generations for this issue to come before the House. I mihi to Te Ururoa Flavell for this, the very first bill to be drafted and delivered by a Māori Party member in the history of this Parliament. I sincerely hope this bill will be positively received and supported by all intelligent parties in this House.

💬 Jonathan Young: That’s us!

That is all of us—hopefully.

These amendments will mean that land that was taken for public works and never used for that purpose, or land that is no longer needed for that purpose, is offered back to the original owners in the first instance. It is simple—this is not rocket science. This is about offering back land that is no longer needed for the purpose for which it was acquired. Yes, there may be issues around whether facilities originally included in the public works have changed over time, but these are not insurmountable problems; they are just technicalities that can be easily dealt with if the Crown is willing. Yes, there may be issues around whether compensation is sufficient to purchase replacement land of equivalent value, but, again, if the desire for justice is there, those issues too will be resolved easily enough.

This bill is simply the application of good common sense whereby land no longer needed for the purpose for which it was acquired is offered back to the original owners. The Māori Party will support this bill without reservation. Kia ora tātou katoa.

E tū atu i runga i te karanga o te pire nei. E mihi kau ana i a koutou te Rōpū Māori, ki a koe e te tuakana e Te Ururoa, tēnā koe. Nā te mea e mōhio atu tātou mai rā anō, e rongo atu ki ngā kōrero e kōrerotia atu a Hone mā, me ngā kōrero a ngā pāti mō te take taumaha nei. Nā te mea, mōhio atu tātou te tangohia a wērā o ngā rōpū, te Kāwana, ngā kaunihera, rātou mā, te whenua, e kore mō te hoki. Nō reira, tēnā tātou.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[I rise to take a call on this bill and acknowledge you, the Māori Party, and my elder by descent, Te Ururoa Flavell. Greetings to you. We have known and heard for a long time what Hone and others, as well as parties, have been going on about, how heavy this issue is. We know quite well that land taken by those organisations, Governments, councils, and suchlike will never come back. So, greetings to us.]

I join my colleague Nanaia Mahuta in stating that the Labour Party will certainly support the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill going to a select committee. This bill is a test of the Public Works Act, and it has a whole lot of ramifications. I wish that my rugby-playing colleague Paul Quinn were here, because we could discuss the issues that are relevant to Treaty settlements and could take on board the salient question raised by Nanaia Mahuta of the impact or impression that this bill will have on certain aspects of settlements. It is important to address that.

The history of this bill is quite simple. In the early years, soon after the settlers had turned us into one of the last settled societies in the world, Māoris looked up to the postmaster, the policeman, the teacher, and the preacher. The postmaster had the coupons, the policeman would lock us up if we did not do what he wanted, the preacher would save our souls, and the teacher would take our kids and teach them the new way. It was all about a new way. One thing that went with that was land. Land was used to build schools, and Māori gave it incredibly generously. One of the real failings is that on half of the land that was given to build schools, no school ever ended up being built. If we look at schools in this country, we cannot see many that were not built on land that was a gift from Māoridom. Education was certainly important; people could see that at the time. Hone Harawira talked about Te Roopu o te Matakite. Those organisations, those groups that struggled, and people like Eva Rickard, Dr Sinclair, and others, fought over a period of time to get those lands back. Councils took land and put their markers on it, quarried it, leased it out for long periods, and then turned it into freehold title land. Some properties that have been well developed will not be returned, but there are still a hell of a lot around that can certainly be returned. Some of the land was purchased by Pākehā families.

But for Māori this is very important. I am proud that we were around in 1997 when the great Government of that time sorted it all—Te Ururoa Flavell will agree with that. During four terms when we were in Government the then Opposition members, who sat here at the time, did not support this. So it is heartening that over a period of time some people can change their view. Some people will suggest it is a flip-flop, but certainly they are very supportive, and we need to recognise that. There are a whole host of things that come with this: the valuations and how we set them up. The Mangatu case is critical in relation to the Public Works Act because those people did attack and win in relation to the valuations and the rate take. A lot of the properties that are valued up in this case that Māori may want back and that were taken from them come back with a real, heavy weight around the neck. My friend from ACT was saying that was not quite right. It is right, because there is a long history behind this stuff. I certainly want to commend Te Ururoa Flavell.

I hope everybody in the House is genuine about supporting this very, very important take, because it is that. Māoris did give; a lot of land was taken. But a lot of this public works land Māori actually gave for the betterment of the country—a lot of the quarries, a lot of the school sites, a lot of the hospital sites, Māori actually gave them. They did not sell them; they did not get paid for them. And that is the test to work out how we quantify the return cost, if there is a cost. I suggest that there should not be a cost. Kia ora.

Let me acknowledge the generosity of the Māori people over the years in supporting this great nation of New Zealand that we are building together. I also acknowledge the excellent effort that Mr Te Ururoa Flavell has put into presenting this Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill from the Māori Party. I congratulate him on his first member’s bill, which we as a Government are very, very happy to support being referred to a select committee. As a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, I look forward to the opportunity to go through this bill and be part of the discussion and debate that will see some of the issues come to the fore.

I will just bring clarification to a matter raised by that colleague in the ACT Party David Garrett. I say that I am also pleased to acknowledge that although there was a long dispute regarding the area of land in Raglan that was turned into a 9-hole golf course—it was going to be turned into an 18-hole golf course—back in 1981 it was returned to the local iwi. Significantly, my father, the Minister of Lands at that particular point in time, was part of the facilitation of that. So I count it a great privilege today to stand here in this House to speak on such an issue, an issue that I believe is of the utmost importance to the people of New Zealand’s plan as a nation to go forward together as people of this great territory. As my colleague Nicky Wagner has so aptly stated, the Crown must act in good faith towards Māori. To take land for a specific purpose and not use it for that purpose without returning it to its original owners is potentially in breach of the good faith that we believe we must be engaged in to go forward as New Zealanders. So we support this bill in its first reading, and support it proceeding to the select committee.

This is a significantly complex bill, not necessarily in its drafting—although I congratulate the drafters on their good work—but in its implementation. It touches on many aspects of public amenity. If a public amenity has been moved from its original purpose—for example, a railway station may have been converted into a public park—it is deemed to be surplus and will be offered back to the original owners. That creates a complex process of implementation, which is why, at the select committee level, we are going to enjoy working through the intricacies that this bill presents. But it is a process that I believe is important to pursue in order for this nation to continue to go forward.

In 1981 a new regime was introduced in New Zealand to protect the original landowners. It required the Commissioner of Works, now the Chief Executive of Land Information New Zealand, or a local authority to dispose of land no longer required for a public work to the person from whom the land was acquired—the former owner. In the case where the former owner was deceased, the land was offered to the former owner’s successor. If there was no successor, then finally the land was offered for public sale.

It is the current policy of State-owned enterprises to offer surplus public land to the land bank that holds public land for Treaty settlements. This allows the land to be made available to iwi as they progress in their Treaty of Waitangi settlements. However, although that may appear to be a reasonable action to enable the redress of Treaty issues, there is the issue that the original owners of the land, a specific hapū or iwi, may not actually be part of the iwi group who negotiate with the Crown for that land. So, in a sense, although Treaty issues can be redressed through that measure, possible disenfranchisement may continue. This bill seeks to offer land acquired for public works back to the original landowner at the time when the land was acquired or taken. This, in fact, will stop the process of unused land being land banked.

I believe that this is a bill that New Zealanders will want to participate in discussing, and we encourage New Zealanders—Pākehā and Māori alike, and all people who count New Zealand as their home—to participate in making submissions to the select committee.

Debate interrupted.