Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Ka nui te mihi ki a koe i tēnei ahiahi, otirā, ki a tātau o te Whare Pāremata.

[Thank you Mr Speaker. I acknowledge you greatly and us indeed of Parliament House this afternoon.]

I move, That the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill be now read a second time. The Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill is an important bill on two counts, if I can start that way. Firstly, there is a local nawe, an issue of local concern to the people of Rangataua Bay and, more broadly, across Tauranga Moana. The second note of significance is the national picture—how the legacy of this bill will, we hope, influence greater power-sharing with Māori right across the motu.

If I can turn your attention firstly to the local perspective, and give some background to those listening, this bill repeals the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act 1975, so it has been around for a while. The area we focused on in the bill was taken by the Mount Maunganui Borough Council for the purposes of establishing sewage ponds at the eastern end of Rangataua Bay, Te Tāhuna o Rangataua, in my electorate of Waiariki, and in the Tauranga area. In essence, the 1975 Act gave the Bay of Plenty Harbour Board the authority to transfer part of the seabed of Tauranga Harbour to the Mount Maunganui Borough Council, and then, to add insult to injury, authorised the council to undertake reclamation of that part of the harbour for sewerage and other purposes.

Ngā Pōtiki, as the local iwi, and individuals like the late Wīremu Ōhia, Chair of the Tauranga Moana Māori Executive, and Paraone Rēweti, the MP for Eastern Māori at the time, were very, very vocal in protesting that the area was a source of food for the people and had an important history attached to it. In the submission to the Local Government and Environment Committee, their point of view is clearly outlined, and I quote from the submission: “For Nga Potiki and indeed Tauranga Maori, the discharge of human waste into the pristine Te Tahuna o Rangataua, that had served as a pataka kai … for centuries was and remains utterly repugnant.” So you can understand that Tauranga people were not happy.

What was particularly disturbing for Ngā Pōtiki was that the outfall pipe was going to head to the ocean by way of an urupā and wāhi tapu—in other words, a cemetery and some sacred sites. This was their ancestral landscape, confirmed by the awards of the Papamoa Block to Ngā Pōtiki by the Crown commissioners in the late 1880s. During the select committee, what I found of particular interest was that the objections of that day were not voiced just by Māori alone. Indeed, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Ministry of Transport also opposed the proposal to reclaim the foreshore and the seabed. At the same time, an environmental impact report established in 1974 concluded that “a flourishing ecosystem on the tidal flats would be lost” through reclamation. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment concluded that the reclamation could not be justified, because of the impact on the area and the possibility of other sites being used. So all parties, if you want to put it that way, were agreed that this was an area of significant environmental and cultural value. Yet, despite all of these objections, the Parliament of the day went ahead anyway. And 37 years on, here we are, and we are finally listening to the wisdom of those who have gone before us.

It has not just happened overnight, and I want to firstly acknowledge those people who some 13 years ago started taking direct action to restore the land to its essence. I want to be clear that the relationship that we are repairing in this legislation is not just between mana whenua and the respective council; it is actually also about Ngā Pōtiki and its close relationship to the land—in particular, Te Tāhuna o Rangataua. We are recognising a history honoured through oral tradition, through waiata, pepeha, and whakataukī, proverbs.

This relationship was constantly referred to in the evidence submitted by Ngā Pōtiki kaumātua to the Waitangi Tribunal held at Mangatawa Marae in 1999. At that time, the people unanimously resolved to establish the trust to be known as the Ngā Pōtiki-a-Tamapāhore Trust to represent and advocate Ngā Pōtiki’s interests with the Crown. In 2000 the Tauranga City Council started a consultation process, establishing the Tangata Whenua Tauranga City Council Standing Committee to facilitate improved engagement between Māori and the council. Four years later the Tauranga Moana Tangata Whenua Collective was established, bringing together representatives of all 15 iwi and hapū resident within the boundaries of Tauranga City Council. Thirteen of the 15 have protocol agreements with the council, which outline how they will work together.

So if we fast track back from then to this bill, I want to commend the Tauranga City Council for its recognition that although it has inherited an area that is still being utilised, a significant portion of the land originally taken will not be needed, and so it has moved to hand it back to the people—awesome. For me it is great to see that the council and iwi are working together, and I cannot work out how this has not happened far more often. When it does happen, it usually removes the angst by iwi, hapū, and whānau about not being engaged and involved in decision making as tangata whenua, and yet we saw with the Rena disaster that a unified approach is always the best approach.

Finally, this is where I want to focus on the broader and nationwide issues that this bill represents. The Māori Party has always advocated for local government that it should—and must, in fact—successfully engage Māori and secure full confidence, trust, faith, and participation in decision-making processes. We invested considerable effort in the last term of Parliament in establishing the Māori Statutory Board in the Auckland Council. We see mana whenua statutory boards as an important mechanism in power sharing with Māori. I see what happens in this bill as another important step in assisting local government to be accountable and responsive when working with mana whenua. And I have to say how great it was to read the submission—and there was only one submission on this bill—which was yet another example of a truly collaborative approach. I want to commend the Tauranga City Council for its declaration that it has no intention to further reclaim land in Te Tāhuna o Rangataua.

Finally, my thoughts return to those pakeke, those kaumātua, from Ngā Pōtiki who protested against the original Act and, indeed, the representatives and advocates from local government and across the community. The repeal of the 1975 Act will, I hope, go some way towards healing the hurt caused by the impact of that legislation. I am proud to have been the sponsor of this bill in its healing capacity.

I want also to acknowledge the very real potential there is as an important consequence of this legislation to strengthen and inspire a constructive and ever-growing respect between Ngā Pōtiki and the Tauranga City Council. The pathway has been set, and I truly believe that there is a positive way forward. That has been acknowledged both by the city council and by Ngā Pōtiki and hopefully, on the broader issue, across Tauranga Moana. I note that in the select committee report there was just one small amendment around a sunset clause, which seems appropriate under the conditions, simply to try to tide the bill over to allow for the enactment of the bill, if you want to put it that way. Over and above that, with the one submission that came in to basically tie the two parties together, it seems to me that there should be unanimous support across the House for this bill to pass as it sits, with the addition of a sunset clause, which would basically tidy it up and allow the iwi to have their land back, or at least an acknowledgment that the land was wrongfully taken—it should never have been taken—but that the bridges have been built to bring the parties together. I will leave that with the House. Ka nui te mihi ki te hunga o roto o te kaunihera, ka mutu, ki a Ngā Pōtiki mō te kaha ki te whakatutuki i tēnei kaupapa. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau katoa.

[I acknowledge those in the council greatly as well as those of Ngā Pōtiki, who worked hard to complete this proposal. Congratulations and well done to you collectively and to us all.]

It gives me pleasure to speak in support of the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill at its second reading. Te Ururoa Flavell, who is the sponsor of the bill, gave a pretty good account of the bill in his speech, and he has just resumed his seat. National does support this bill and, as a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, which considered this bill, it was a bill that was well drafted and well supported. The Local Government and Environment Committee received one submission on it, and that submission, on behalf of two parties, was in support of the bill. So this bill proceeded through the select committee process in a pretty orderly manner.

It was an interesting bill, however, and pretty significant, I have to say, for the local Tauranga / Mount Maunganui iwi and community. So what this bill does is repeal the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act 1975, which now has no legal effect. This bill came about because it was a requirement of the Tauranga waste-water comprehensive discharge resource consent. So in order for that consent to proceed, this matter had to be dealt with in the House, and that is what is happening. The bill returns the legal status of the land to what it was before the Act took effect in 1975.

In terms of the background and main provisions of the bill, the Act transferred—and I am referring to the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act 1975—part of the seabed of Tauranga Harbour to the Mount Maunganui Borough Council, which was the predecessor of the Tauranga Borough Council, and authorised it to carry out reclamation work for sewerage and other municipal purposes quite usual for growing communities. The area authorised to be transferred under the Act totalled in amount 73½ hectares, and the council reclaimed approximately 23½ of those hectares.

The authority to reclaim the balance of the area was revoked by subsequent legislation in 1991. The principal Act, therefore, no longer has any legal effect. So during the application process to upgrade the Tauranga City Council’s waste-water treatment plant, the local iwi and other stakeholders expressed grievances regarding the scope of the land that could be reclaimed under the Act and the adverse impacts and effects of waste-water treatment on that land.

The Tauranga City Council and stakeholders agree that the repeal of the principal Act and the returning of the legal status of the land to what it was before the 1975 Act is appropriate in the contexts of these grievances and concerns. In the second reading of the bill I support it to the House.

Kia ora. I rise to speak to the second reading of the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill. I want to express Labour’s support for this bill. As you can see from the Local Government and Environment Committee report that has been brought back to the House, there was no dissent. There was general agreement that this was a small but significant bill to progress, for all the reasons that Te Ururoa Flavell mentioned in his second reading speech.

Alongside my contribution in the first reading debate, I also want to acknowledge the ongoing relationship that the Tauranga Moana District Māori Council has with tangata whenua in its area. I hope that the opportunity provided post this bill will continue to strengthen their relationship, because if there is an important point that was raised in the House going forward with regards to district planning processes and regional resource management processes, it is that iwi want to play a constructive role in that whole decision-making process.

I also want to acknowledge that when I introduced a member’s bill in the House regarding the recognition of iwi management plans, Te Ururoa Flavell was one of the first members across the House to express his support because he understood the importance of ensuring that front-end engagement of iwi and of tangata whenua in the decision-making and planning process could only strengthen local decision-making overall. I suspect that his contribution with regard to the interests of Ngā Pōtiki and Tauranga Moana really enhanced that perspective.

I do not want to take up too much time on the bill in particular. A small but useful amendment was made by the select committee regarding the repeal of the legislation.

I simply want to acknowledge that the Ōhia whānau, who are members of Ngā Pōtiki, have advocated strongly historically and in contemporary times for the interests, first and foremost, of the health of the harbour and their particular connection with the resources in that harbour, as well as their cultural connection. It is an important thing to recognise your relationship to your environment in the way in which you play an active custodial role in your rohe.

Again, in summary, I would like to highlight that it is my sincere intention to support the good work that is under way with the tangata whenua of Tauranga Moana to see their harbour continue to be a harbour that provides food—kai. Not only is it a place where people can go for recreational benefit but also it is a place where all peoples within the Tauranga community, Māori and Pākehā alike, can contribute to positive decision-making for the health and well-being of the harbour and their wider community. Kia ora.

My contribution is going to be as short as the importance of this bill, the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill. This bill repeals the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act 1975, which has absolutely no legal consequence at all. So what we are doing is simply getting a useless law off the statute book so that people can move on. Parliament spends an awful lot of time passing new laws. We on this side of the House are about actually reducing the amount of law and regulation that we have on the book. Having an Act of Parliament that has absolutely no legal impact at all is serving no useful purpose. The House should get on, pass this bill, and repeal this law that has no effect, so that we have one less law on the book that is complicating the lives, in this case, of people who live in the Mount Maunganui and Tauranga area. The Local Government and Environment Committee has done a very fair job. It heard submissions and confirmed those facts. Let us simply pass the bill and repeal this piece of law, which has well and truly passed its use-by date.

Although the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill may not have a lot of legal consequence, I think it is very significant in terms of its cultural consequences. There has been a long history in this country of local authorities not paying due regard to Māori interests when it comes to siting rubbish dumps, oxidation ponds, and sewage plants, and those have often been sited by, or discharged into, waterways.

I am very grateful to Te Ururoa Flavell for his explanation of the history of this bill. It was certainly brought to the attention of the Local Government and Environment Committee, too, in the joint submission by Ngā Pōtiki and the Tauranga City Council. The reclamation that the Mount Maunganui Borough Council did was of gross offence to Ngā Pōtiki. That was because the harbour is a taonga. The reclamation and the discharge of sewage were offensive to the values of that ancestral landscape because they did not recognise the significance of the harbour as taonga, in terms of both the siting of the waste-water treatment plant on the reclamation and the proposals to discharge effluent into the southernmost part of Tauranga Harbour. Then, as Te Ururoa Flavell explained, the siting and construction of the pipe took the effluent out to an ocean outfall through an urupā, a sacred burial ground. These sorts of things have been done by local authorities repeatedly. It is in this bill, by repealing the legislation and repealing the ability for the council to continue with the reclamation, that we are putting things right.

The whole sewage treatment plant and the discharges were opposed vigorously in the 1970s. I think we need to remember that when communities and Māori are active on other issues to protect their taonga and to protect their natural environment, they have a very valid point in protecting what is important to them: the natural environment. We should not just dismiss that opposition as getting in the way of development, as this Government often does. It was back in the 1970s, if you read the Waitangi Tribunal’s report, that you had the kaumātua vigorously opposing the reclassification of the waters of the harbour that would have allowed the discharges, and opposing the reclamation, and Government agencies, like the Ministry of Fisheries and the Commissioner for the Environment at the time, opposing the reclamation, and yet it still proceeded.

We have moved on since then. It was enormously heartening at the select committee to have one submission on the bill—a joint submission by Ngā Pōtiki and the Tauranga City Council, which has, of course, succeeded the Mount Maunganui Borough Council—supporting this bill and explaining some of the history. Those submitters gave evidence that there is now a much more constructive working relationship between Ngā Pōtiki and the council. That has been manifest in a standing committee on the council to facilitate better engagement with iwi, and a commitment by the city council to the establishment of wetlands and other treatment that removes the solids from the discharges that go through the ocean outfall. This is a very good bill. It is a bill that the Green Party supports, and it should be passed into law. Thank you.

I am happy to stand and speak in support of this bill, the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill, which is in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell on behalf of the Tauranga City Council. I too am going to take only a very short call, but I do want to address the extraordinary contribution of the Hon Dr Nick Smith. It is just so incredible how he manages to be offensive even on the most innocuous pieces of legislation. Here is a very simple piece of legislation, which everyone supports, and yet he still manages to find that one angle to offend people by saying that because this bill means nothing to him, this bill does nothing, and we should just get rid of it. Well, actually, this bill is extremely important to the people of Tauranga and to the iwi of Tauranga, who see this, as Te Ururoa Flavell outlined in his speech, as addressing a longstanding issue. Just because it does not matter to Nick Smith, it does not mean that it is not important. But perhaps this shows the kind of arrogance that we are seeing from the National Party in terms of its engagement with Māori over asset sales and Māori interests in water. Perhaps that is why we are seeing such a dog’s breakfast being made there, because of the very kind of attitude that we just saw from the Hon Dr Nick Smith, which is “I don’t like it. Get rid of it.”

💬 Maggie Barry: Talk to the bill.

Oh, Maggie Barry tells me to talk to the bill, yes. Maggie Barry never reads the bills. That is why she does not realise that I am talking to the bill, which is about recognising the interests of iwi and how important this piece of legislation is to them.

I just want to point out one other thing that the Hon Dr Nick Smith said. He said that National does not pass pieces of legislation to do nothing. Well, we have just had an emissions trading scheme bill reported back to the House today that will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, will do nothing to meet our greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, and will do nothing to do all the things that an emissions trading scheme is meant to do except provide enormous cost and bureaucracy for industries that are in it. You could not get a more classic example of a piece of legislation that achieves absolutely nothing except compliance cost and will do nothing to achieve its stated aims of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I do not think there has been a worse example of legislation that does not do anything except cause compliance costs for everyone involved.

I am very disappointed that the National Party has taken this position on the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill. This is an important piece of legislation for the people it affects. We deserve to show them that respect, and not say that just because Nick Smith does not care about it, it means it should be ridiculed and rubbished in the House. I hope future National Party speakers take a slightly more moderate line on this and show the Tauranga City Council and the people of Ngā Pōtiki the respect that they deserve. Thank you.

I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill. As we have heard from other speakers this evening and during the other readings of this bill, this is basically putting right something that was put in place 30 or 40 years ago in terms of providing for reclamation of land in the Tauranga Harbour, which no longer is applicable. The Mount Maunganui Borough Council, as it was then, created its sewerage system. It had 73.5 hectares, but in total it required only something like 23.5 hectares to be reclaimed for the project for its sewerage scheme, and therefore the balance of the concession of this area of land and water is no longer applicable and is being revoked. We support this.

We congratulate those involved in bringing this to the House: the Tauranga City Council, the honourable member Te Ururoa Flavell, and Ngā Pōtiki in particular. This is very special to Ngā Pōtiki in the Bay of Plenty area, who wish to have this encumbrance removed from some of that land and sea water area. As a result, this is a very special occasion for it to have that encumbrance removed from this particular area of designation. We are in support of this. This cleans up a statute that is on the book that is no longer applicable. We do support this and New Zealand First is fully behind it. Thank you.

I am very pleased to be speaking on the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill. I would like to acknowledge the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, Nicky Wagner; Te Ururoa Flavell, the sponsor of this bill; and also the local MP and Minister, the Hon Simon Bridges, for the great work that he has been doing in Tauranga. As has already been mentioned this afternoon and this early evening, the purpose of this bill is to repeal the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act 1975. The purpose of the principal Act, as we know, was to transfer 73.5 hectares of the seabed and foreshore of Tauranga harbour from the Bay of Plenty Harbour Board, as the owner of the land, to the Mount Maunganui Borough Council. As we know, the borough council reclaimed approximately 23.5 hectares of the total area. We know, as well, that this principal Act no longer has any authority, because the authority to reclaim the balance of the area was revoked by the Foreshore and Seabed Endowment Revesting Act 1991.

What was really pleasing, and it was mentioned by a couple of speakers this early evening, was that there was one submission, and it was a joint submission—that is my understanding—from both Ngā Pōtiki-a-Tamapāhore Trust and the Tauranga City Council. The key thing about that one submission was that it was collaborative. The submission supported the purpose of the bill for several reasons. The first was that the Tauranga City Council has no intention to reclaim further land. The second was that the repeal of the principal Act will provide—and I think this is a very, very important point, and it has been made by a number of other speakers as well—some vindication to those Ngā Pōtiki kaumātua and other members of the community who actually protested against the principal Act. My colleague Nick Smith quite rightly articulated that really what we are doing here is we are repealing an Act that does not have any significance, but it does, at one level, for Ngā Pōtiki kaumātua and other members of the community who protested against the principal Act, have significance because they actually did protest against that. The repeal of the principal Act, as has been mentioned by Te Ururoa Flavell, will help heal past conflicts and strengthen an already positive relationship between Ngā Pōtiki and Tauranga City Council.

The only other thing that I would like to really cover is that in the Local Government and Environment Committee there was actually an amendment within the committee that recommended inserting a new clause, a sunset clause, which effectively says the Act would expire 28 days after it comes into force. The whole purpose of that is that without that clause, one Act with no continuing effect would be replaced in the statute book with another.

We are all aware of the history. Effectively, this Act did transfer that part of the seabed of Tauranga harbour to the Mount Maunganui Borough Council. We are aware that only 23.5 hectares of that piece of land was transferred. We are also aware that there was a piece of legislation that effectively revoked that principal Act, but the purpose of this Act, and we saw this through that very collaborative submission from Ngā Pōtiki and the Tauranga City Council, is actually to also acknowledge and vindicate—I use this word from one of the departmental reports—Ngā Pōtiki kaumātua and other members of the community who had protested against the principal Act.

The final point that I would like to make is that during the application process to upgrade Tauranga City Council’s waste-water treatment plant, and when these other iwi and stakeholders expressed grievances at the time, Tauranga City Council and stakeholders actually concurred—and I think this might have been in 2006—with the repeal of the principal Act and returning that legal status of the land to what it was pre-1975, and that was appropriate. So it has been a couple of years since this has come to Parliament, but, as I said before, that one submission was incredibly collaborative. I think what our select committee managed to do was make a very worthwhile clause around that sunset clause, and it was a very collaborative process across the select committee. I would like to reiterate my support for the chair of the select committee, Nicky Wagner; for the member who sponsored this bill, Te Ururoa Flavell; for the local MP, the Hon Simon Bridges; and for my other colleagues Paul Goldsmith, Maggie Barry, and Jacqui Dean. I support this bill to the House.

As the House has heard, Labour supports the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell. I congratulate him on bringing this bill to the House and getting it through with a lot of support. But I did wonder why the local member, Simon Bridges, who we have just heard does so much hard work up in that area, did not bring the bill to the House, and he had the opportunity to do that. But congratulations to Te Ururoa Flavell.

As you have heard, this bill seeks to repeal the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act 1975, an Act that gave the Bay of Plenty Harbour Board the authority to transfer part of the seabed of Tauranga Harbour to the Mount Maunganui Borough Council. It then authorised the council to undertake reclamation of that part of the harbour for sewerage and for other purposes. Subsequently, the council, we are told, reclaimed less than half of the available area, and the authority to undertake reclamation of the rest was then revoked by the enactment of the Foreshore and Seabed Endowment Revesting Act of 1991. Therefore, the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act has no legal effect. The change made by this bill is to insert, as you have heard, a sunset clause that would provide for the Act to expire 28 days after it comes into force, because without such a clause, one Act with no continuing effect would be replaced on the statute book with another. One thing I do agree on with Nick Smith is that he said we would have a useless Act on the statute book and what this does is get rid of it.

I think what was of interest to me during the debate on this bill was the historical perspective that was put forward by a number of members. It really did enlighten this House as to the effect on Ngā Pōtiki of changes that were made over the years. Nanaia Mahuta and Shane Jones, in particular, gave a very good perspective of what it meant historically, and Shane Jones pointed out his family connections and ancestral connections to the area. Also, I thought Te Ururoa Flavell was able to set out the environmental and cultural importance of the area to Ngā Pōtiki, and the many people who had protested against the original changes must be delighted with this bill today. I also thought that Shane Jones brought a sense of balance to the debate at the first reading, when he pointed out that, sure, this had affected Ngā Pōtiki, but, in fact, effluent does not draw a distinction between colour, race, and creed. In fact, the disposal of effluent affects all people in the area, and being able to tidy up with this bill will probably be of help to everybody.

I would like to also acknowledge the work of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I was not on the select committee for this bill, but we are told there was only one submission to the bill and that it was a very collaborative approach. Changes were made that have helped the bill and people will be very keen to see its passage through this House. I would just like to say that I think that this is one select committee that works reasonably well together and that Nicky Wagner does a good job of chairing that committee. I hope that that continues with the rest of the bills that we have, particularly the local government amendment bill that we are going to be looking at over the next couple of weeks. I would hope that same cooperation and collaborative approach will take place with another very important local government bill. However, I do fear that this bill is being driven by the former Minister Dr Nick Smith who also sits on this committee, and maybe we will not see the same cooperation and collaboration. So, as we said, we support this bill. Congratulations to Te Ururoa Flavell on bringing it to this House and on having a bill to be passed in his name. No doubt, when this happens to people, they feel a certain sense of pride.

I rise with pleasure to speak to the second reading of the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill, having heard Te Ururoa Flavell, the sponsor of this bill, speak earlier about the history of it and the clear need for redress and the need to put things right that were wrong. This bill is an effort to rectify a situation and it does seem that the repeal of this Act is long overdue.

As has been referred to by many other speakers in this debate so far, there was only one submission on this bill, and for the benefit of the list MP for Gisborne, who was clearly not paying much attention—this is the person who formerly held the seat and now it is with the Hon Anne Tolley—I would like to go over a little bit of the background of it. When Colin Reeder, the chairperson, on behalf of Ngā Pōtiki-a-Tamapāhore Trust, and Christine Jones, who was the acting chief executive on behalf of the Tauranga City Council, came before our Local Government and Environment Committee, she spelt out some of that history, and it really is worth recapping. I think this is not an untypical situation. It is one where the expediency of the local council took over from common sense for a little while. That is how I see it.

Looking back to 1972, the Mount Maunganui Borough Council proposed a waste-water scheme that required a substantial reclamation within that area of water. That was then done, but the trouble was with the construction of the oxidation ponds from which that effluent would be temporarily discharged into Te Tāhuna o Rangataua. That discharge would occur only until an ocean outfall was constructed at Papamoa, so it was always going to be a temporary measure, but for Ngā Pōtiki, and, indeed, for all of Tauranga Māori, the discharge of human waste into those pristine waters, which had served as a very important food resource for them, was an utterly repugnant measure. The proposal was particularly abhorrent for Ngā Pōtiki, as the submitters said to us—and for those on the select committee on the day who were paying close attention to what they were saying, because we care about legislation and we do assume that the select committee process is taken seriously by even the most languid and lacklustre members of the Opposition who sit on the committee. But this proposal was spelt out to us in heartfelt terms.

💬 Andrew Williams: How dare you! What a rude woman you are.

We had a situation where the tangata whenua were particularly vociferous in their opposition to the Mount Maunganui Borough Council’s proposal, because what we had was a flourishing ecosystem. It was absolutely flourishing, but the tidal flats would be lost to reclamation, and it claimed that the ongoing effects of the oxidation ponds would be minor. It would appear as if people on the other side of the House have actually woken up. “How dare they!”, said Mr Williams. Well, he knows all about faux outrage. He is a specialist on it, as I know only too well on behalf of the lemon trees and pōhutukawas on the North Shore, but that is another story.

Let us get back to the 1974 environmental impact report that stated that the ecosystem and the tidal flats would actually be lost through reclamation, but, in fact, that has not proven to be the case. We are very relieved to know that in 1989 the Mount Maunganui Borough Council and the Tauranga District Council—and the Tauranga City Council presented the submission, I thought, with eloquence and a heartfelt passion—decided that those waste-water systems would then become jointly managed. So after about 10 years they embarked on that consultative process. Yes, these things do take time, but for Ngā Pōtiki that reclamation of the foreshore and the seabed, the construction and the presence of the oxidation ponds, remained a difficult thing. The effluent represented, as they saw it, the failure of the Crown to protect Ngā Pōtiki.

So this is an essential piece of legislation, because once the job has been done—and it has, and everyone agrees that it has—we now look at the repeal of this Act. I think that with that repeal, there is a certain amount of closure. The people who stood before us at the select committee talked about the vindication that they felt on behalf of their late ancestors, the Ngā Pōtiki kaumātua, who had worked tirelessly on this measure in the 1970s and 1980s. They were people—men and women in their senior years—who, as a group, over more than 25 years, had protested against what they viewed as a shocking invasion of their ancestral landscape and their cultural values. The relationship between Ngā Pōtiki and the Tauranga City Council had been a good one. It had always been based on mutual respect. This had caused a great strain on that relationship. As they said as they detailed the history of it, this was something that needed to be put right, and they needed to work collaboratively and constructively.

As my colleague the honourable Nikki Kaye mentioned earlier, it is a very important thing that collaboration and cooperative ventures were agreed upon in a way that was really very heartening, indeed. I think that the submission really summed it up for me. Although there was only one of them, it was a very important one, and it put into context the importance of this bill. So Ngā Pōtiki-a-Tamapāhore Trust and the Tauranga City Council both supported this Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill in its current form because there is no intention for a further reclamation. That has been pointed out by previous speakers. The repeal of the Act will provide, as I have indicated earlier, some vindication to those Ngā Pōtiki kaumātua, and to other members of the community who protested against the original Act, because they were not alone in that. The repeal of the Act will help to heal the past conflicts and strengthen the relationship now between the iwi and the Tauranga City Council that was put under enormous strain.

So it has been, I think, a long time coming and it is long overdue. I look forward to the third reading of this bill, and I think that it is long overdue for the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill to be passed. Thank you.

It is my pleasure to also talk on this bill, the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill. I do want to start by paying tribute also to the work of Nicky Wagner as the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I was very pleased and heartened to hear the comments of our colleague Annette King about how useful and effective Nicky Wagner has been as chair, and that has certainly been my experience over the last year on the committee. We have steered a careful course in a committee where the Government has no clear majority, and have got through in a spirit of collegiality and all working for the best of the country.

I want to talk about the local member, Simon Bridges, as well. Indeed, I was with Mr Bridges on Monday this week, and we had the opportunity to go for a run around Mount Maunganui, which is a beautiful part of New Zealand. Notwithstanding the fact that he looks quite pudgy, Simon Bridges is quite a fast runner and quite fit, and it was quite a challenge for me. But he is a very effective local MP, and a very effective contributor to this part of the country. I was in Mount Maunganui to have the opportunity to talk to a large and boisterous crowd about the progress the Government is making. I touched upon issues of welfare reform being one of the most essential elements of this Government’s programme for the 3 years, and how important it is for New Zealanders to get some boundaries round that system. I recall that back in 1938 when Michael Joseph Savage introduced welfare to New Zealand he promised that he would end poverty and that it would bring about the kingdom of God on earth. We have not quite reached those goals yet, and it is important that this Government does, for the first time in many decades, bring some careful consideration to that broader system that is so important to the lives of many New Zealanders.

I also talked about how, in the dangerous and difficult world that we find ourselves in—the difficult financial situation—this Government is making great progress, steering a careful path, returning us back to surplus, and governing this country’s economic services in a very effective manner. With that, as by way of introduction, I want to get on to the main point of this bill here, which is the Local Government and Environment Committee’s having sent back to the House for its second reading this Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill.

We have heard, but I just would like to reiterate, that the bill seeks to repeal the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act 1975, which gave the Bay of Plenty Harbour Board the authority to transfer part of the seabed of Tauranga Harbour to the Mount Maunganui Borough Council, and authorised the council to undertake reclamation of that part of the harbour for sewerage and other municipal purposes. This is always a very difficult issue for councils around the country—balancing the need to have a cost-effective system with the need to preserve the environment. Many councils struggle with this. This council struggled with it, and we had legislation to get us through, and thankfully, a number of years later, the council reclaimed less than half the available area, and the authority to undertake reclamation of the balance was revoked by the enactment of the Foreshore and Seabed Endowment Revesting Act of 1991. Really, the upshot of that was that the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act had no substantive legal effect. Nevertheless it is worth repealing this Act because it is useful to tidy up the statute book, and the symbolism is important, because this has been a source of grievance for the local Ngā Pōtiki people. It has been something that has irritated people, and sat on the statute book there in a way that they found difficult. So this bill repeals that Act, and the Government, of which I am very proud to be a member, is supporting this bill.

I think the main thing that the bill reiterates to me is that it demonstrates the way that this Government has been very effective in its coalition arrangements and in working effectively with the Māori Party on a number of issues. It has all been about working together so that we can have a coherent and stable Government, doing the best for New Zealand in difficult times economically. The results speak for themselves when we cast our minds around the world and look at most of the developing world, which is struggling under a lack of negative growth, high inflation, and watering of the milk with quantitative easing. New Zealand is continuing to have growth over these last few years, effectively, and that all comes down to the sensible, considered, and logical settings that have been delivered to this country through Bill English, John Key, and this National Government. With that in mind, I will be very happy to support this bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa. I would like to take a short call in support of the bill, the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill. I think it is excellent to see this progress being made in the House, and I would like to commend Ngā Pōtiki and the Tauranga City Council for this healing relationship that is being manifest through this piece of legislation. I think it is quite a significant piece of legislation. Most people have made very constructive and informative comments on it. I think it is an opportunity to do that when we all have consensus in the House, so that is a good thing.

I would like to reflect on the fact that the 1960s and 1970s were a particularly ugly time in the history of development in this country, and Ngā Pōtiki are the victims, if you like, or the survivors, of that particularly ruthless time, when the Treaty was pretty much treated as a nullity and the environment was pretty much treated as a dump. So it is really good to see the progress from those days. What happened in Te Tāhuna o Rangataua in the Tauranga Moana area is damage, and that damage is not easily fixable, but the social damage is being rebuilt at the moment, which I think is a very positive step in the right direction. However, when we read the history of it and we listen to particularly Te Ururoa Flavell’s account, we realise the depth of experience of Ngā Pōtiki and others when they tried to stop sewage and reclaimed land being dumped in their pātaka kai.

I think one of the previous speakers said that this is a shared issue where Māori and people katoa, if you like, are all affected, and that it does not distinguish. But in a weird way, in my experience, it does. We have often built sewerage plants, and reclaimed land, and put outfall pipes over Māori land, on wāhi tapu, including urupā. In fact, in my working life prior to being in this House, I was often involved in campaigns led by Māori, with very little Pākehā support—namely in Tai Rāwhiti, namely in the Bay of Plenty—around issues where sewage was being dumped into the rivers and the ocean, and tangata whenua, like Ngā Pōtiki, were forced to take protest action and major leadership. I think the reason for that is that for people who get their food from the supermarket it is not so concerning if there is an outfall pipe going into the water. People who do not gather their kai from the river, who do not gather their kai from the ocean on a daily basis, and who do not feed manuhiri through collecting kai do not have a concept of how deeply offensive it is to other people who not only rely on that food source, as Ngā Potiki did in Tauranga, but also are culturally offended at the most profound level.

Having been through this journey as a mediator between Whāingaroa, Āwhitu, and the district council, and having been through this issue in Tūranga-nui-a-Kiwa, and now hearing the story of Ngā Pōtiki, what comes home to me as a Green is that we all have a responsibility as humans who produce waste to take responsibility for where that waste ends up. What happened in Tauranga Moana was an overriding of voices, so that is why today is a positive day, because for once we are all united in hearing those voices and moving forward. It is just regrettable that it has taken so long, and that it has been such a difficult process.

So this is not just something to tick off. This is an opportunity for healing and an opportunity for learning, and for thinking about what happens to sewage. We can get man on the moon—and I say “man” advisedly—but we still do not have systems for dealing with sewage that actually work, and we still use the oceans, waterways, and wetlands as dumping grounds for sewage. If you know anything about what tangata whenua all around the motu have called for, it is for land-based disposal. It is really interesting, having been through a number of court cases on these issues, to realise how complex that has now become, because our waste—which Ngā Pōtiki so strongly protested about, because of the environment that they were trying to protect—is no longer something that we can put safely anywhere, because of the contamination of our food and the contamination of the environment.

This has been a hara—a deep hurt—for many iwi. I guess, when I think about Tauranga Moana, which is an exceptionally fertile, beautiful waterway area, it is good to see that the Tauranga City Council has stepped up to the plate in the critical issue. And the critical issue in healing is always relationship. It is always relationship. It is forming the right relationship, and I would like to echo the comments that Te Ururoa Flavell made about the reason this bill is important. Firstly, it rights a wrong. But, secondly, it focuses on a relationship that was presented to the Local Government and Environment Committee as a positive one for overcoming past hurts.

Regrettably, in other parts of the country you do not see councils even now being willing to take the step that the Tauranga City Council has. I was present when the Gisborne District Council voted down the opportunity to have a relationship with tangata whenua. That was disgraceful. The mayor had the casting vote and voted it down. I am also aware that the Thames-Coromandel District Council just voted down an opportunity to have a formal memorandum relationship with tangata whenua. Thank goodness that the Tauranga City Council, in the face of a challenge that has happened since 1975, decided it was more important to build a relationship and work collectively to get a positive result, unlike other councils that are still acting as if co-governance under Te Tiriti o Waitangi is some kind of threat. Actually, it is an opportunity for healing and for harmony, and for mutual education, and for strengthening in terms of things like how we deal with our waste.

That is why the Green Party is very happy to support this bill. We really want to see waste dealt with in a way that is culturally appropriate and environmentally sound. Ultimately, we have got to get waste out of water. It is a waste of water, it is a contamination issue, and it is culturally offensive. We have to find other ways of dealing with waste that are safe, because mother Earth actually could deal with sewage, but unfortunately sewage is now full of all kinds of weird contaminants—as are we. So it is a serious issue.

I want to thank Ngā Pōtiki and the leadership of tangata whenua throughout the motu for constantly in the last 50 or so years saying no to outfalls, even when they lost, and no to the contamination of wetlands and wastelands, and upholding their cultural rights. Every single place, every single story, every single pipe, every single oxidation pond that has been dumped on a taniwha in Raglan, or piped over the Raglan golf course, or pushed into the wetlands and the reclaimed lands at Tauranga Moana—every one of those stories needs to be told and sorted.

Today is a good day because we are sorting something that is overdue, so all credit to the select committee, all credit to Te Ururoa, all credit to the people on the ground who have led the struggle over a long period of time. It is great to see change and it is great to be here to be moving forward on this. I consider what others have dismissed as a minor bill as nation-building. This is where we actually start to see a change in this country. This is where people start to understand each other better and to talk about something as fundamental as sewerage. If we cannot get sewerage right, we are not going to get the rest of it right, so I really applaud the relationship that has been built in Tauranga. I hope that it applies not just to Te Tāhuna o Rangataua but also to the aspirations of tangata whenua as a whole in Tauranga Moana, because they have been through enough with the Rena. There are still issues with the Rena. Those relationships are going to be the critical things that are going to get us through these kinds of disasters, which, hopefully, never happen again.

But the sewerage disaster, which was created by bad planning and by denying of the Treaty, can be healed. That is why I am heartened by this bill today, because if we actually look to the articles of the Treaty, we will find an opportunity to build a right relationship ever since 1840, and even though it has been trampled on, there are people upholding it. That is what this bill is about, and I am very delighted that the Green Party supports this from a Treaty perspective and from an environmental perspective—because they are not that separate. If you listen to tangata whenua, what they are talking about is the environment being in a state where people can express their cultural relationships and gather kai, and where other people too, manuhiri as well, can express enjoyment of, and a food-gathering relationship with, nature. Nature gave it all to us, and what have we done to it? We have made a mess of it. But thank goodness for bills like this where we start to build relationships so that we can start with integrity to put these things right. Kia ora tātou.

Bill read a second time.