Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, ka nui te mihi ki a koe, otirā, tātau katoa i tēnei rā.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. I acknowledge you greatly and, indeed, all of us today.]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Kai te pai ahau.

[I am fine.]

Ka pai. Ka nui te mihi ki a koe. Me huri te titiro ki runga ake nei, ki a kōrua kua tae mai, e whakakanohi nei i te āhuatanga o Te Tāhuna o Rangataua, ā, tēnā kōrua i hara mai ai i te rā nei, me te āhuatanga o ngā mate e kawe haerehia nei e tātau i te rā nei. Waiho rātau kia moe, ko kōrua e whakakanohi nei i a rāua. Tēnā kōrua, haere mai, haere mai, haere mai.

[Wonderful. I acknowledge you greatly. Allow me to look upwards to you two who have arrived here and are putting a face to the Rangataua Sandbank situation. Acknowledgments to you two who came and to the deaths that we bear with us today. Allow the dead to rest there. So welcome to you two, the face of those two situations, welcome, welcome, welcome here.]

I move, That the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill be now read a third time. I want to firstly acknowledge the members around this House who supported the recommendation at the Business Committee that the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill does not require consideration in Committee, and that it be set down for third reading, as permissible under Standing Order 295. Coming to that decision is in itself an important endorsement of the power of community ownership. I also want to point out that from whoa to go this process has been wrapped up in 5 months, which is pretty commendable, and I acknowledge the outstanding work done by the Local Government and Environment Committee in this regard. I thank those members very much.

This is a bill that represents a significant collaboration between Tauranga City Council, working with the relevant iwi, to have land that was confiscated returned back to the people. Of course, I refer in this case to Ngā Pōtiki, who are present in the gallery this afternoon. I want to also acknowledge those who have not been able to come down and who may well be listening back home in Tauranga Moana. This legislation will pass through the House today as a significant milestone for the people of Tauranga Moana, and particularly Ngā Pōtiki, who have borne the insult and the offence of actions taken 40 years ago.

The history we have heard during the passage of this bill takes us back to 1975, when the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act allowed the Bay of Plenty Harbour Board the authority to transfer authority for part of the seabed to the Mount Maunganui Borough Council, which then used it for sewerage and other purposes. I have also said in the House that local leaders of Tauranga Moana at the time were very vocal in their protest and made their concerns very, very apparent. Through the submission of the Ngā Pōtiki-a-Tamapāhore Trust we learnt about the close relationship that Ngā Pōtiki felt to Te Tāhuna o Rangataua, also known as the Rangataua Estuary. This relationship is expressed through the many rich pepeha, whakatauākī, and waiata of the people of the land, the mana whenua, and is demonstrated by the location of the marae in close proximity to the shoreline. It is now up to this House to see that this bill is passed into law, giving mana and kaitiaki back to mana whenua, and influencing greater power-sharing with Māori.

I want to mention the insight and initiative of the Ngā Pōtiki-a-Tamapāhore Trust, which entered into the process with two key platforms as a part of its long-term and local vision. It is committed to doing what it can to support strong, healthy, and sustainable Māori communities, and, secondly, to participate in a regional workforce development plan with a view to improving Māori economic status. That vision overlaps with the ambition of the Tauranga City Council, as cited in its whakatauākī: “Rapua te huarahi whānui hei ara whakapiri i ngā iwi e rua i te whakaaro kotahi.”—seek the broad highway that will unite the two peoples towards a common goal. I have to say that the dealings between some Tauranga iwi and the Tauranga District Council have not necessarily always been of a positive flavour, but this is a sign that the times are moving to change, and, indeed, the melding of the two visions is an important sign of that.

It is important to note that legislative provisions for Māori involvement at a local government level exist to a certain extent, yet the reality of how local authorities carry out the implicit balancing act required, say, by the resource management system indicates that legislative provision is not in and of itself a sufficient mechanism to protect Māori interests. It needs commitment and it needs common will, and that is what we are seeing with this particular bill: a unique collaboration between the Tauranga City Council and the Ngā Pōtiki-a-Tamapāhore Trust. This bill is the embodiment of that relationship.

I want to just contextualise this bill in Tauranga Moana, 1886-2006, a report on the post-raupatu claims published by the Waitangi Tribunal in 2010. In that report it says: “The general provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991 are Treaty-compliant. The sting is in the detail: kaitiakitanga, for example, can be narrowed to those resources where the two cultures have a common mind; relationships to wāhi tapu can be weighed up against other matters and set aside; the principles of the Treaty can be taken into account and then outweighed by other criteria.” I think what the Waitangi Tribunal has alluded to is that local government must do what it can to maximise participation and engagement of relevant Māori groups and representatives. A clear policy agenda on the role of Māori, who may be collectivised as, I suppose, iwi, hapū, whānau, or mana whenua, from pre-planning through to the planning and implementation phases of the system, is absolutely essential.

The Rena disaster taught us a number of lessons. There is a certain resilience, I believe, in Aotearoa when our lands are threatened by disaster. People come together for a common cause, and Māori played an important part in the clean-up and the recovery of communities following this disaster. That is a natural reaction because of the close relationship we have with Papatūānuku and Tangaroa.

Within the rohe of Tauranga Moana we learnt particularly that having mana whenua involved in decision making is a major plus, as we have the resources, the know-how, and the people power to make a significant contribution. But it was at the decision-making level that it really counted. I am very pleased in this regard to be sponsoring this bill, because I really do believe that it is demonstrating an effective example of collaboration that is worked at the local authority level, and we can learn a lot of lessons from that.

The Māori Party believes that any growth in the formal recognition of iwi in local decision-making has come about as a result of those particular Māori groups involved having the necessary capability and capacities to maximise their own involvement at that strategic level. We are mindful that much work and collaboration are needed to implement the required changes for improved Māori involvement at a local government level. If the foundations are laid properly, the construction that stands upon these foundations will for ever remain stronger and for much longer. In the context of our country’s natural resources, it is imperative that we do work together now to ensure the health and wealth of those resources into the future.

The Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill is establishing a new environment for the relationship based on mutual respect. We are hopeful that in establishing a new legal understanding, this bill will help to strengthen the relationship between Tauranga City Council and Ngā Pōtiki. It also represents the vindication of the many Ngā Pōtiki kaumātua who upheld protection of the ancestral landscape and cultural values, including the late Parāone Rēweti, MP for Eastern Māori, and Wīremu Ōhia, chairman of the Tauranga Moana Māori Executive.

Finally, for Ngā Pōtiki, the reclamation of the foreshore and seabed, the existence of the oxidation ponds, and the discharge of effluent all represent a failure by the Crown to protect Ngā Pōtiki and the ancestral heritage. This bill protects the pātaka kai, it preserves ancient Ngā Pōtiki urupā, and it upholds the sacred respect the people hold in their wāhi tapu.

For all of these reasons the Māori Party is proud to support the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill. Can I thank, as I stand, all of those from the Tauranga City Council who led this initiative with Ngā Pōtiki people—as I say, some of whom are in the gallery today. I could mention names, but I fear that I may miss people out who worked behind the scenes and they may not have their names read out. Some are, however, as I say, in the gallery, and I thank them for being here today and for coming down from Tauranga Moana. It has indeed been an honour for me to usher this bill through the House, and the Māori Party commends this bill for its passing. Kia ora tātou.

I want to begin by paying a tribute to the sponsor of this local bill, the Māori Party MP for Waiariki, Te Ururoa Flavell. It is very easy when you are dealing with natural resource issues, and particularly some of the tensions and the history with Māori, to play a game of divide and rule, and to cause tensions. Te Ururoa Flavell is a member who not just on this bill, the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill, but on others, while being a very strong advocate for his Māori constituents, is also one who is out to find solutions. I worked with him closely when dealing with the worst environmental tragedy of the Rena and want to commend both him and the local iwi of the Bay of Plenty for the constructive way in which they worked on that issue that caused huge hurt. We see exactly the same approach with this member’s dealings in having this longstanding grievance over natural resource issues resolved with the repeal of the old Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act.

The second point I wish to make is that this repeal reflects a change in attitude, quite appropriately, by New Zealand in the way in which it manages its estuaries and the more general foreshore areas on our coast. For a long part of our history we had very definitive land law that put great value on the land bits of New Zealand, but took a view of estuaries and the coast that they were worthless and treated them as such. It is a crying shame when you travel around New Zealand and you see the number of tips or landfills that were created in coastal areas. The predominant culture was that those areas of estuaries were wasteland and were not to be valued. Equally so, whenever we look at putting sewerage schemes in place, where do we put them? We put them on the coast and we put them in estuaries.

In the last 30 to 40 years there has been a significant revolution in our attitude towards our estuaries and coastal areas, seeing them as highly valued areas for recreation, for the environment, for fishing kai moana, and the like, and this repeal reflects that change of putting a greater value on our coastal and estuarine areas. I particularly say that of all the areas in which you could put landfills, for instance, or rubbish dumps, the coastal areas are actually some of the worst and cause the greatest environmental woes, and that is why it is appropriate that this old Act be repealed.

I want to commend the cooperative way this bill was dealt with at the select committee, with Nicky Wagner as the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, and the submissions that we received from the local councils and local iwi. There was a consensus in the committee that Te Ururoa Flavell’s bill was the right thing to do. It repeals this Act. It will improve iwi relations in the Bay of Plenty around the management of that pretty magnificent coast.

I note the only change the select committee made to the bill was to ensure that in the process we do not leave another stranded bill on the books. I also commend this bill for reducing the number of statutes. We spend a lot of time in this Parliament passing new laws. It is actually good that we review some of the old laws, and repeal them when they are no longer appropriate. This is a good bill. I again commend the member. The House should pass it.

Labour has supported, and will continue to support, the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell. We too once again want to congratulate him on bringing this bill to the House and on supporting the people in his area in advocating for them for the repeal of an out-of-date and unnecessary Act. I know that he has put a lot of work into it and has a lot of support from his area to bring the bill to the House, and to see its passage. It is not very often, unless you are a Minister in a Government, that you do get to see a bill in your name that then goes onto the statute book, and you are there, hopefully, for many years to come.

This bill is about repealing the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act of 1975. It was 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, and authorise the council to undertake reclamation of that part of the harbour for sewerage and other municipal purposes. We are told that the council reclaimed less than half of the area, and the authority to undertake the reclamation of the balance was repealed by the enactment of the Foreshore and Seabed Endowment Revesting Act.

So what it actually means now is that the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act has no substantive legal effect. In other words, we do not need it. I agree with the comments made by Nick Smith. I do not often agree with him, but I do agree that we ought to get rid of unnecessary Acts that do not serve any purpose. If Sir Geoffrey Palmer was here, he would be applauding, because one of the things that he firmly believed in was going through many of our old statutes, tidying them up, rewriting them, and getting rid of out-of-date statutes.

I was interested to hear of the history that surrounded this particular piece of legislation. I realised, when I listened to Te Ururoa Flavell—who gave us a very comprehensive history of what had happened in this Tauranga area—and also to Nanaia Mahuta and Shane Jones, that what had happened in the harbour of Tauranga is of great importance to Māori and has had great effect on Māori. They have long advocated for there to be a change in what was going on within the harbour. This is a very, very sacred area for them.

I thought it was interesting to hear Shane Jones’ speech at the time. He did say that it is very important to acknowledge the place of iwi in this and the importance to Māori, but he said there are two things to be borne in mind: you need to be sensitive to the claims and concerns for ancestral land, but you had to bear in mind that no city, no country, and no nation can advance itself in the absence of an evolving, improving civil infrastructure, which is what will arise out of what is going on between Tauranga and iwi.

So that collaboration that Te Ururoa Flavell talked about between iwi and local government is, I think, really important. I would like to see more of this sort of collaboration around New Zealand with local governments. I know there are many very, very good local governments that are prepared to work collaboratively and closely with Māori, and they have benefited from that. They get to make good decisions. They get to examine decisions where if they had not consulted with iwi, it could have led to greater problems for them and greater cost. But when they have involved iwi and they have collaborated and worked through issues—often issues that they were not necessarily aware of; they may not have been aware of the history of an area—they have found that it has been to the benefit not only of iwi but their whole local government area and the people who live in it.

We do not wish to prolong this bill. We support it, we congratulate the member who has brought it here, and we wish for its speedy passage.

I also rise, as do other members in this House, to support the third reading of the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill. I want to also congratulate the local member, the Māori Party MP for Waiariki, Te Ururoa Flavell, on bringing this bill to the House.

Previous speakers have noted how in previous years local infrastructure, particularly sewerage works, have been sited on what is now recognised as being pretty fragile and special parts of New Zealand. In my own area of the South Island, when I am flying into places like Queenstown or turning the corner into Moeraki and I go past a waste-water treatment or a sewerage treatment settling ponds site, I think, oh gosh, if we had thought about it a little harder some time ago we might have sited these facilities somewhere that was not a place that is so special to the local community, and in this case to the local iwi.

National does support this bill at its third reading, and I also want to recognise Nicky Wagner, the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, and, indeed, all the members of that committee, for working in a collegial fashion on this bill. The bill, in fact, made good sense. The committee made only one small change, and that was to insert a sunset clause into it, so that we do not have such a statute left hanging around on the statute book. That was the only change we made.

We received very few submissions, but we did receive a joint submission from Ngā Pōtiki and the Tauranga City Council. In their submission, in which they give background and context to the bill, they finally said to the committee the reasons to support the bill. So I think it is worth going back to them for their reasons as to why they support and promote this bill. Ngā Pōtiki-a-Tamapāhore Trust and the Tauranga City Council support the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill in its current form. They support it, and they told us why they support it. It was for several reasons. First of all—quite a prosaic reason, I guess—the Tauranga City Council has no intention to further reclaim land in Te Tāhuna o Rangataua.

Secondly, the repeal of the bill will provide some vindication, and I think that is a very important point that has been raised by a number of speakers throughout the passage of this bill. It will provide some satisfaction, I hope, and vindication for the position taken by those Ngā Pōtiki kaumātua, and other members of the community, who protested against the original Act from the point of view that this land to them was a pretty special place.

Although it was needed by the Mount Maunganui Borough Council of the day, and it was taken by the borough council of the day, it was land that was very special to them, for all sorts of reasons. It was taken because it was needed, and now, of course, these many years later, not all of that land—some 73.5 hectares—was transferred under the original Act. The council reclaimed approximately only 23.5 hectares of that land. So the authority to reclaim the balance of the area—what would that be; some 40-something hectares—was revoked by subsequent legislation.

That happened in 1991, so the principal Act, therefore, has no legal effect. It has become redundant and, therefore, this repeal bill is before us. In repealing that original Act, I think the local iwi and council can effectively put some of the past behind them, and, as other members in this House have noted, can now have the opportunity to work cooperatively in the future.

The third reason, which this joint submission does note, is that the repeal of the bill will help to heal past conflicts and strengthen an already positive relationship between Ngā Pōtiki and the Tauranga City Council. How can this House argue with that? It is a good bill, it enjoys the support of the House, and I commend its passing at its third reading.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to rise and take a short call on the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill. The Green Party, like others, supports the bill and congratulates Te Ururoa Flavell on bringing the bill to the House. The bill is going to repeal the principal 1975 Act that gave authority for the transfer of part of the bed of the Tauranga Moana, the Tauranga Harbour, to what was then the Mount Maunganui Borough Council, and what is now the Tauranga City Council, for its sewerage scheme and other municipal purposes.

The improvements in sewage treatment and discharge in Aotearoa New Zealand over the last 100 years are due in no small measure to iwi such as Ngā Pōtiki and many others who have championed clean water and the health of our harbours, our rivers, and our inshore coast, and sought to safeguard these areas from the indifference of local authorities. As the Waitangi Tribunal said in its report on the Tauranga Moana claim: “for decades, local councils regarded Tauranga Harbour as the obvious repository for sewage.” It was as late as the 1950s, at Mount Maunganui, that the sewerage system was still very primitive. Sewage effluent there could end up in an open drain. Residents relied on septic tanks right through until the 1970s, with the associated risk of effluent leakage into the harbour and waterways. So it was this reclamation within the south-eastern arm of Tauranga Harbour, the Rangataua estuary, that the principal Act and this bill deal with. That was in response to the inadequacies of a growing population relying on septic tanks. So in 1972 the borough council’s scheme involved this reclamation within the estuary and the construction of oxidation ponds, and effluent was proposed to be discharged directly into the estuary, until an ocean outfall was built at Omanu.

It was Tauranga Māori, including the kaumātua of Ngā Pōtiki, who strongly opposed this reclamation and the oxidation ponds because of their effects on the estuary, the destruction of a flourishing ecosystem on the tidal flats, and their whole desire to protect their ancestral landscape, their taonga of the harbour, and to protect their shellfish beds. When you read through the Waitangi Tribunal report and its description of the intense efforts that Ngā Pōtiki made to try to protect the health of this landscape, it is very interesting to compare those efforts with the efforts of iwi now to protect the health of our beloved awa and roto, our rivers and lakes. Back in 1972 Tauranga Māori convinced the Pollution Advisory Council of the time to reclassify the harbour waters to a standard that would prevent the oxidation pond discharges, and then in the next year the classification was changed back again. There was an early claim to the Waitangi Tribunal and a whole series of appeals. The Act, which this bill repeals, cut across those local tensions and challenges and it gave the Mount Maunganui Borough Council the authority to proceed with this destructive reclamation and to construct the ponds. Although we now have wetlands that filter the discharge before it goes into the ocean, the way in which the land was taken remains enormously hurtful to Ngā Pōtiki and, because of the hurt, to their ancestral landscape. This bill is a small step in settling the claim and recognising the hurt that was caused.

Just as that principal Act cut across the local challenges to the Mount Maunganui Borough Council’s proposed scheme, today we hear that the Minister for Primary Industries and this Government intend to change the Resource Management Act to make it much more difficult for those councils, which are belatedly trying to deal with the impacts on our rivers, aquifers, and lakes, of the heavy nutrient burden that intensive agriculture is putting on these waterways. Changing the Resource Management Act to impose a more onerous cost-benefit test on councils when they are considering policies and rules to control the impacts of agricultural intensification would be creating an obstacle to the protection of our rivers and lakes, just in the same way that the principal Act created the enormous hurt on this ancestral landscape by giving the council the authority to do this reclamation. Just as in this bill we are recognising the much greater value that we put on our estuaries and inshore coasts now, we need to better value our roto and our awa, and we need to remove that pollution burden that is happening now—not because of human sewage so much, but more because of animal effluent.

This bill is a step forward. I acknowledge the Tauranga City Council and the partnership that it is developing with Ngā Pōtiki. Certainly, at the Local Government and Environment Committee the joint submission from Ngā Pōtiki and the city council wanted this bill to repeal the Act in a timely manner, and I think the House is doing that. We are very pleased as the Green Party to support the bill.

Kia ora anō tātou. Mō te wāhanga tuatahi o tēnei kōrero, māku tō tāua Reo Māori e whakamahi kia puta ai ōku whakaaro. Tautoko i te tū o Te Ururoa Flavell nāna i pīkau mai tēnei pire hei āmene mā te Whare nei. Mihi atu hoki ki a ia mō tana haukerikeri i te ngako o ngā nawe kei waenga tonu i tēnā hapū e meinga nei, ko Ngā Pōtiki. I te Kaharoa rātou e mātakitaki ana i ēnā taonga ō rātou e pokepokengia ana nā roto i te tukunga o te para weta me te hamuti ki te moana, kātahi, ka whakakinongia haeretia wā rātou mātaitai. Nā, me te haunga katoa. Nā reira, me tino whai kupu ahau ki te tautoko i te tū a Te Ururoa, ahakoa taku tātā i a ia i runga i te pouaka whakaata i te pō o te Mane, me tana tangiweto i te kore nōna i pai ki ōku kōrero, nā reira hāunga anō tērā. Me te mahara hoki, te whakakorikori i a tātou te ao Māori, arā noa atu ngā moana, ngā awa, me ētahi atu o ngā whenua i mua, i whakamahia wērā taonga, kia pai ai te tupu, te noho o te tangata. Nā, kua huri te ao i nāianei. Kua kite tātou me kaua rawa tātou e whakapirau tonu, whakakino tonu i ngā tāonga i roto i ngā kāinga e noho nei tātou i ō tātou tahataha. Ēngari, me mōhio te ao Māori, ēhara i te mea ka oti te katoa ō wā rātou hiahia, ō rātou whakaaro i te korenga o rātou e pai ki te kite i ngā taonga e whakamahia pēneitia ana. He wā anō, ko ngā taonga o te hapori, he nui atu, he hōhonu atu i ngā pānga o tētahi hapū kotahi anakenake. Ēngari, kaua e waiho i te hapū kia whakatahangia, me waiho rātou kia whiwhi kupu ai, kia whai reo ai ēngari te mutunga, kaua tātou e akapōhēhē i a tātou, e oti ngā whakaaro o tētahi wāhi hapū, ka mutu, ka kore oti ngā whakaaro o te whānuitanga o te hapori.

[Greetings to us once again. In respect to the first part of this address, I will express my views in our Māori language. I endorse Te Ururoa Flavell’s position. He is the one who has brought this bill here for this House to affirm. I acknowledge his efforts in digging out the gist of the concerns that remain there still among that sub-tribe of Ngā Pōtiki. They witnessed their resources at Kaharoa being polluted through the release of animal wastes and excrement into the ocean and the continual contamination upon their seafood resources and the total stench as well. Therefore, I really have to express my support for the position taken by Te Ururoa, despite the fact that I contradicted him on television on Monday night, and he was a sooky bubba because my remarks did not appeal to him, but put that to the side. We must remember as well to rouse ourselves of the Māori world to the fact that there are several oceans, rivers, and some lands out there previously where such resources were utilised to sustain the growth and lifestyle of the people. The world has changed now. We have seen that the contamination and pollution of resources in places where we are still living and nearby must be discontinued. However, even if we do not like to see resources being treated in this manner, Māoridom must understand that not all they want and hope for will be met. There are times when community resources will be much greater and more extensive than the interests of one solitary sub-tribe. But the sub-tribe must never be put to one side. It must have an opportunity to speak and to be represented but at the end of it all, we must not delude ourselves into thinking that the views of one solitary sub-tribe should be dealt with at the expense of those of the greater community.]

I support, along with my fellow speakers, the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill. It will be a characteristically pithy contribution, where brevity will shine through. A halo has come on the head of my senior colleague Mr Mallard upon hearing those words.

Somewhat uncharacteristically for me, I actually agreed with the previous speaker from the Green Party, but that is another matter. We need to remind ourselves that Ngā Pōtiki—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Me, got a halo?

I understand that my other colleague from Auckland has aspirations of being my senior colleague, but that fate awaits him. So he has organised for me to stand “soldier to soldier” with the Green Party about some kaupapa in Auckland, but that is for another day.

The Ngā Pōtiki hapū were not unlike other Tauranga hapū. They have watched their taonga, etc., grievously affected. Although this bill does advance the interests of a more rational approach from local government to dealing with these issues in that area, the sad reality is that those tangata whenua voices in the past have been blocked. They have been given a voice in this case, but it is a salient reminder to those of us who do advocate for our Māori causes that in many cases the overarching interests of “New Zealand Inc.”, or the broader community, will eclipse our interests as Māori, and that we win some, we lose some.

It is good to see that my former colleague Mita Ririnui is back working with his people. He would have shown a tremendous level of interest in this. He is advancing, along with the very council we are referring to, the interests of the tangata whenua in the broader Tauranga Moana area. It is an area that is growing rapidly. Its port is in a stoush at the moment, because another hapū fears that it wants to do dredging that is unnecessarily large, and they have yet to see a reasonable level of relationship come between the port and the hapū. So it is a salient reminder also for all the burghers of Mount Maunganui and Tauranga that unless they address this and maintain a high-quality relationship with the tangata whenua, small in number they may be but prodigious is the drama they can develop. Kia ora tātou katoa.

I take a call on behalf of New Zealand for the third reading of the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill. As all members in the House have already said, this has the full support of all parties in the House. I am on the Local Government and Environment Committee. It was very pleasing that the committee was able to receive the few submissions that came in on this bill, which was fully supported by all members of our committee.

I would like to also pass New Zealand First’s congratulations to those involved, particularly to Ngā Pōtiki in terms of their commitment to following this process through; to the member Te Ururoa Flavell on his attention to this process, as well, and ensuring that it came through the House in a prompt and speedy manner; to the local authority, the Tauranga City Council, and local people in that area on supporting and also championing this bill; and also to the people who were affected by this over 50 years, in that there were 73.5 hectares of land and sea area taken under the former Mount Maunganui borough reclamation, of which only 23.5 hectares were required to be used for their sewerage project, leaving 50 hectares basically in limbo. So it is good that this is being returned and that the repeal of this Act will ensure that those 50 hectares are taken out of that encumbrance.

I was in Tauranga last week for a couple of days. Flying in to the airport there, where you fly over Tauranga Harbour—it is a most impressive harbour. It is a lovely harbour in terms of harbours within an urban area in what is quite a sizable city environment now, with Tauranga City including the former Mount Maunganui borough. It is a wonderful harbour and, therefore, it is very, very good that this bill provides for that important aspect in terms of local iwi, local hapū, and the local city sorting out this piece of legislation that no longer applies.

We are very pleased to support this bill, and we are glad that this is now the third reading and that it will go through. This is another good bill, in that the statute that will be done away with in terms of no longer being required. Thank you.

I am very pleased to be speaking on this piece of legislation, the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill, in the third reading. Can I acknowledge Te Ururoa Flavell, Māori Party MP for Waiariki. Can I also acknowledge Nicky Wagner, the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee.

As has already been mentioned by my colleague the Hon Nick Smith, I think this House should pay tribute when a local member comes to this Parliament with a bill, because often there has been a huge amount of work, which we do not see, behind the scenes to liaise with groups—in this particular instance, obviously, local iwi. We have heard right throughout the select committee process, but also in the advice from the Department of Internal Affairs on a submission by Ngā Pōtiki, that although for some members this might seem a tidying-up of the statute book, for other members in the community, for iwi, there is actually quite a bit in this bill that is of cultural significance.

I want to briefly touch on how much I understand, particularly when it comes to the importance to water as being of cultural significance. Obviously, we are dealing with waste water, but as a member responsible for a large part of the Hauraki Gulf I know the issues that often come up both in terms of the community but also with local iwi around recognising that cultural significance of some of our conservation areas, particularly when it comes to water.

So, as has already been mentioned, it is fairly straightforward. The select committee recommended that we repeal the Act, but that we also insert a new clause 5, which is a sunset clause. We know the history. The Act transferred part of the seabed of the Tauranga Harbour to the Mount Maunganui Borough Council. We know that the area authorised to be transferred under the Act was 73.5 hectares but, actually, the council reclaimed approximately only 23.5 hectares.

I again have gone back through my research, and I think Ngā Pōtiki summed it up with the reasons that my colleague Jacqui Dean mentioned in terms of supporting this bill. I think, firstly, the Tauranga City Council has no intention to further reclaim the land. Secondly, the repeal of this Act will provide, in the term that is used in the Ngā Pōtiki submission, vindication for some of the members of the community who did protest against the original Act. And then the third thing is around that cultural significance and the healing of the wounds of past conflicts between Ngā Pōtiki and the Tauranga City Council.

Again, as well, I would just mention that on this side of the House, in terms of local government we have a view that if we want to have good harmonious relationships between central government and local government, then there does need to be a greater focus on shared infrastructure and also in terms of reducing debt, so that there are better relationships in the community in general.

Just coming back to the bill—I think it has been a really collaborative process on the Local Government and Environment Committee. I think the chair has done an outstanding job. I think the local member has done a huge amount of work behind the scenes in terms of the research—and we have seen it through the Department of Internal Affairs and its work on this bill. I commend this bill to the House, because I think not only does the Tauranga City Council have no intention to reclaim the land but, actually, there is a cultural significance to passing this legislation in the House. So I just end my speech by saying that I acknowledge Ngā Pōtiki, I acknowledge the Tauranga City Council, and I acknowledge the select committee for its work on this bill. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the—is the member calling? I call the honourable member Catherine Delahunty. I understand that this is a split call, so the member will get a bell with 1 minute to go.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I am reluctant to speak before the Hon Parekura Horomia, who has very graciously given me the call. I was wondering whether there was going to be anyone else speaking.

I think it is interesting that this Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill is being described as a tidying-up bill. Tidying-up, in my experience, is sometimes a euphemism for some of the most profound things that we do. It is really great that we are getting to the third reading, because it is long overdue. It is a bill that everybody supports, a bill that the Local Government and Environment Committee supported unanimously, and a bill that, for once, there is no dispute over—apart from the fact that it has taken so long.

I think it is a bill that also symbolises the importance of the role of protest. Often those of us who have stood up and protested against things have been vilified—on a regular basis, in fact—but without protest by people like Ngā Pōtiki, the changes do not stay in front of the people who have power and privilege. So it is necessary sometimes to draw a line in the sand literally over these issues, take that stand, and be vilified in order to get change. Change happens. The beast of power and the beast of authority, particularly local authority, I have to say, can move very slowly, particularly on issues to do with culture, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and—one of my passions and the Green Party’s passions—sewage. It is an important issue. We can put man on the moon, but we cannot deal with the most fundamental issues about how to deal with our own waste. We are great at celebrating our marvellous technological achievements, but we are still pumping a lot of human waste into water, and that, of course, is a profound cultural offence in many places in this country. In fact, the origins of this bill come from a reclamation that was about where waste water was being sited and about the creation of a cultural offence, which this bill will go a long way to deal with.

So I would like to acknowledge the select committee and Te Ururoa Flavell, but primarily the Tauranga City Council and Ngā Pōtiki, and primarily Ngā Pōtiki themselves for their persistent and courageous challenge, through protest, through lobbying, and eventually through dialogue and negotiation, to get to this point, to deal with what I heard was laid down a long time ago. If we are going to find solutions to the issue around sewage and waste water, we actually need to involve all the parties, particularly those whose land it is on, whose waters are affected, and whose cultural relationships have been trampled on. In the experience of the Green Party, all over the country there are iwi and hapū that have for a long time asked us not to site waste water, pipelines, sewerage pipes, waste-water ponds, and all the rest of the paraphernalia of our current unsophisticated way of dealing with waste water on their sacred sites.

So this is progress indeed, but it is still an issue that many, many people around the country who are not in power are struggling to be heard on, because we still have those pipelines, we still have those discharge pipes, and we still have those ponds that leach into waterways and rivers. That is why you will hear not only from me but from many groups around the country constant calls for a more modern approach towards this very fundamental issue of human waste.

This bill is about saying that it is no longer acceptable to ignore the views of tangata whenua. So it is a Treaty issue. I would just like to point out that we often have bills in the House to do with a land settlement, and we have Te Tiriti o Waitangi bills—in fact, I have heard it eloquently said in this House that we should have Tiriti o Waitangi days where we deal with those—but actually Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which lives on well beyond the end of settlement, is about all of these matters. It is about water, it is about sewage, and it is about taonga katoa; it is about all of those things—how we deal with those with honour and respect towards each other. And, ultimately, it is about relationships. This bill for us is about a relationship that was breached through an abusive practice and an abusive treatment not only of the environment but of the people of the place, who have the whakapapa, the ancestral whakapapa to their tūrangawaewae, in terms of the way they were treated, the land was treated, and the water was treated. It is about saying that we are not going to do that any more.

The Tauranga City Council and Ngā Pōtiki have moved to a new era, and that is something we should support and celebrate. So I commend the bill to the House. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. E whakaaro atu mō te pire nei, mō te tū o te Maunga o Mauao me me ngā awa katoa i reira me te takutai moana. E mōhio atu tātou mai rā nō a te tuku tiko ki roto i te wai e kāre e whakaae atu rātou Ngā Pōtiki. E mihi kau ana ki a rātou te iwi e whaiwhai tonu atu mō te take nei. E mihi kau ana ki te kaunihera, e whakahuri atu tō rātou whakaaro e whakaae atu te pīrangi o te hau kāinga. Nō reira, mihi atu ki a rātou nā te mea, i roto i āku e mōhio atu tātou, e rerekē atu tērā mahi te tae atu o te paru tangata ki roto i te wai. I reira kē ngā taonga, ngā kai o tātou mai rā nō. He aha ai e whakaae atu? Te tino pōhēhē a te mahi nei, e te Kaiwhakahaere o te Whare; e pīrangi atu te kaunihera ki te tuku atu i te whenua, i te wāhi ki a rātou hei whakamahi atu i te mahi, e kāre e whakaaea te katoa. Nō reira, e tino mihi atu ki te Whare nei, ki te kaunihera, e mahi atu i tō rātou mahi.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am thinking about this bill, and Mount Maunganui with all its rivers and coastal waters placed there. We know that the release of excrement into the water has been going on for a very long time and they, Ngā Pōtiki, have never approved of it. I commend them, the people who have continued to fight this matter. I acknowledge the council, who have changed their minds and have agreed to the wishes of the local people. So I congratulate them because within me, we all know that releasing human effluent into the water is really abnormal. Our treasures and food have always been there since time immemorial. Why has it been allowed to happen? Mr Speaker of the House, this action is really perplexing; the council want to give them the land, the place for them to utilise, but it will not allow the majority. So I really commend this House, and the council, for playing their part.]

There are two words in society that people get mixed up: tiko and teka. Tiko is about excrement; teka is about embellished fibs. Maurice Williamson is gazing at me with real concentration because sometimes a lot of it flows from over there, and we need to ensure that we can differentiate. It is difficult at times.

It is difficult at times to differentiate between tiko and teka coming from over there. But this bill has put a surety into it. It ensures that we appreciate that excrement going into the sea is not a good thing, and it does not matter who tikos—it is the same, Pākehā tiko, Māori tiko. But when Pākehā law tries to take away from the haukāinga more than lore, it is a bad thing, and the council needs to be recognised for their efforts in turning this legislation round.

I know my colleague Trevor Mallard would agree with me in relation to that, even though sometimes he expounds on things in great language that are hard to differentiate. But it is important. It is important that we do not continue to dirty the water with the human water waste and allow it to carry on. God forbid if I were out there trying to get pāua or kina and something that came from Maurice Williamson’s body was floating past there. That is how dastardly—that is how dastardly and reprehensible this excrement is.

We have turned a blind eye. What has come down from the bottom has passed into the waters, and it has taken the Māori people to object to it. It is great that the council has had the courage to not give the land, to not let the development go ahead, and to recognise what the tangata whenua are crying out for, because this is a great thing. They are talking representatively of what all the people care about in Tauranga. It is no good sitting in your great pastel confines, gazing out at the sea, and saying: “Cor, this is a beautiful sight”, yet knowing that that creepy-crawly tiko is floating around in the water. That some people have used the idiom of teka to say that it is all right is not well. Maurice knows that he wants to listen to this, because he believes in it. He is really a greenie at heart. He is not the extreme right, masochist person that people think he is. He is a greenie at heart.

This is more than the Greens. This is about human common sense. Do not pollute the waters. Do not put your foul management out there. Is it not great that we should celebrate that a few brave Māoris, who live under the gaze of their mountain Mauao, have decided to try to turn round history? This country is bad for it. Even over in Pētone, even around the foreshore, you see it still coming out. So at least the Māoris and the Pākehās, and especially that iwi there, have stood together to defeat this kōrero teka about puta te tiko. We need to do it more in this country and make sure that we do not carry on with embellished fibs—that is, teka—trying to ignore and deny that tiko goes into the domain that we all love and want to cherish and keep clean. Kia ora.

I rise with pleasure to speak on the third reading of the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill. I would like to lead us away from that dark place where the member who has just resumed his seat, the Hon Parekura Horomia, has taken us. Thank you—you know, a member and, indeed, a party well-qualified to speak at length about such matters—for that lesson in tiko. But let us move on from this movement and go instead to the substance of the issue. [Interruption] Yes, we will be passionate about it, Maurice.

I was on the Local Government and Environment Committee that heard the submission on this, when Colin Reeder, the chairperson, came to us on behalf of Ngā Pōtiki-a-Tamapāhore Trust, and Christine Jones, as well, the deputy chief executive on behalf of the Tauranga City Council. When they came to speak to us about it, it became very apparent why the sponsoring member for this bill, Te Ururoa Flavell, is to be commended, and I join the chorus of approval for the member of Parliament who brought this bill, because this Government is certainly in the business of repealing legislation that has no use, and this is a classic piece of that, but it is also putting to right a very great wrong.

As my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith said earlier, in the days back in 1972 when this whole project was conceived, those were different days when we had a different attitude towards the waterways and the estuaries. We did not acknowledge or understand in the way that the tangata whenua do that these are precious places that need to be protected. Instead we treated landfill, sewage, and so forth as something that we had a right to discharge and expel into our precious waterways. I feel that we have learnt, as a nation, a lot from what Ngā Pōtiki have told us about this, because when they talked about the kai moana and when they talked about the need to have these pristine waters preserved, they were ahead of their time in terms of the Pākehā listening to them.

In 1972, when the Mount Maunganui Borough Council proposed this wastewater scheme, it did not really think too carefully about the ramifications of it—the construction of the oxidation ponds. They were the ponds, of course, from where the effluent was to be discharged, and it was discharged directly into the Rangataua River. That was a very bad thing to do, and the council continued to do that for a length of time. The ocean outfall was constructed at Papamoa. That is a wonderful, pristine part of the world—or it used to be. This discharge was supposedly going to occur only until the ocean outfall was constructed, but as it was always going to be a temporary measure it dragged on for rather a lot longer than that.

The kaumātua are to be commended for their persistence and their integrity. Many of them who are not able to be here today are to be congratulated on, and commended for, their forward thinking and their tenacious move to continue to encourage people to see that the kai moana and the waters need to be preserved and protected. I think we have all learnt a lesson. I understand that they are here in the gallery somewhere. I think this is a commendable time for you to come. Please pass on our thanks for your contribution to New Zealand having a better attitude towards our environment and the way we need to treat it. We have learnt a lot from you, and I know that it has come at a considerable cost. When I heard the submission from Colin Reeder on behalf of Ngā Pōtiki, I understood how difficult it would have been for that fight to continue. The council was not always so open to the things that you said to them, but I think this bill is the embodiment of a better attitude and a higher tolerance that is now present between the tribe and the council, and I hope that when the Act is repealed—as it will be today—that will go into a brighter future.

I commend you on the stand you have taken, because it took courage, it took a lot of time and effort, and I think that we as a nation have benefited from it. Certainly, in your own area, things will now be restored and returned. I hope that the repeal of this now useless piece of legislation will go some way to healing the hurt. I commend you for all the work you have done, and the sponsoring Minister of this—or the sponsoring member, I should say, Te Ururoa Flavell—

💬 Hon Parekura Horomia: Make him a Minister.

—for bringing it here. Yes, “Make the man a Minister.”, said Parekura. It may happen one day. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

It seems incumbent on me to give a brief summary of this particular bill, the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill. Something that is a matter we should all reflect on is that it is not just the role of this place to make laws and look to make changes that add value to our country but also it is the role of this place to ensure that laws that exist that have no good and have no place any longer are repealed. More law is not necessarily good for this country. More law is not necessarily good law.

This Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill, now in its third reading stage, will repeal the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act, which no longer has any legal effect. The repeal of the Act is a requirement of the Tauranga waste-water comprehensive discharge resource consent. The bill returns the legal status of the land to what it was before the Act took effect in 1975.

There have been some interesting contributions across the House today. The Hon Parekura Horomia certainly made a contribution that I am sure raised a few eyebrows here and among the many thousands of viewers who, I am sure, were watching from home with great interest.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: You’re not allowed to address them.

The incomprehensible nature of that contribution would seek to confuse some people, but that is not uncommon coming from that side of the House, as I am sure Mr Mallard will attest to. He constantly hears it coming from both of his ears.

💬 Hon Parekura Horomia: That’s teka coming out.

Teka? I am not sure we should delve back into that.

Can I just commend Mr Flavell for bringing this bill forward and for ensuring that this piece of legislation can run its course. Can I commend the Tauranga City Council for resolving the matter in the way that it has. I am sure that the beautiful Bay of Plenty will continue to be beautiful in the face of this bill. I am happy to commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.