Te Hiku Claims Settlement Bill

I want briefly to address just a couple of points in the bill. The bill had its first reading on 4 November 2014, and was considered by the Māori Affairs Committee earlier this year. Supplementary Order Paper 113 of 8 September makes minor technical corrections to parts of the bill that require updating. It corrects the definition of the Ngāti Kahu Accumulated Rentals Trust and corrects the legal description of Te Rerepari, a cultural redress property, transferring to Te Aupōuri. The second Supplementary Order Paper, Supplementary Order Paper 114, splits the omnibus bill into six bills, so that allows for Ngāti Kuri, Te Aupōuri, NgāiTakoto, and Te Rarawa to have individual claims settlement Acts reflecting the mana and the rangatiratanga of the Te Hiku iwi.

The other two bills to be enacted are the Ngāti Kahu Accumulated Rentals Trust Bill, which preserves rental moneys from Aupōuri Forest for Ngāti Kahu to receive in the future, and an amendment bill to repeal section 17 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act 1977, a provision that has not been used but caused confusion over the status of the land for Te Rarawa.

Can I briefly also refer honourable members to clause 519 of the bill dealing with the ability of the Crown to transfer properties to give effect to part 9 of the deed, and that includes properties that will be the subject of a deferred selection property process to the trustees of the various iwi.

A question has arisen in recent days about the status of Kaitāia Airport and, because of public interest in the matter, I thought it would be useful to spell out just what exactly is going on because there have been a number of reports that are, shall we say, mildly misleading—that is very charitable. Ngāti Kahu and NgāiTakoto have Treaty claims over Kaitāia Airport, and anyone who has a problem with that should go to the 2013 Waitangi Tribunal remedies report, where it is all spelt out for people.

Kaitāia Airport is a Land Information New Zealand property. The Crown has, pursuant to the 2013 tribunal remedies report, offered both NgāiTakoto and Ngāti Kahu the right to purchase the property in 50:50 shares. It is a deferred selection property. It is referred to in schedule 4 of the deed of settlement, which is, indeed, in turn referred to in part 9 of the deed dealing with deferred selection properties. The offer is conditional on the land remaining an airport, and it is important to note that because it is a deferred selection, the right to purchase becomes active in 3 years. If Ngāti Kahu have not concluded a Treaty settlement within 3 years of NgāiTakoto’s settlement date around December 2018, then NgāiTakoto will have the sole right to purchase the property as a deferred selection property. This approach was taken because the Crown had to balance the interests of both iwi while ensuring certainty about the future of the airport.

Kaitāia Airport was included on the basis outlined above in the Crown’s settlement offer to Ngāti Kahu. Both Land Information New Zealand and Far North Holdings Ltd, the commercial arm of the Far North District Council, are due to begin renegotiating lease arrangements for the airport. Both NgāiTakoto and Ngāti Kahu will be offered the opportunity as potential future landowners to be involved in those discussions.

So that is the position. Ngāti Kahu has not been locked out. I would very much like Ngāti Kahu to get involved in negotiations, and let me say this: I have received a number of notes from people in Ngāti Kahu who are very keen to begin negotiations, and I would hate to think that they are going to be criticised as Ngāti Kahu occupying the airport, because it is not. There are a few miscreants who are doing it. They do not reflect Ngāti Kahu. I hope that the day will come very soon when the miscreants will get lost, and Ngāti Kahu negotiators—be they the current ones or new ones—will sit down with the Crown to sort out these arrangements. There is no place for this kind of oafish behaviour, and I say no more than that because it is a matter for the police. It is an operational matter, and politicians do not get involved in operational matters.

My contribution in the Committee stage will be brief because, to be frank, Ngāti Kuri, Te Aupōuri, NgāiTakoto, and Te Rarawa have waited long enough. But I do want to thank the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for just spelling out Supplementary Order Paper 114 and explaining how the bill is going to be split up into its component parts to reflect the needs of each of the iwi.

I would also like to thank him for the explanation regarding the situation at Kaitāia Airport, as well. Ngāti Kahu and NgāiTakoto have a 50:50 interest in it. If, after December 2018, Ngāti Kahu have decided not to go further, NgāiTakoto will have the opportunity to purchase the airport on their own, and I understand the reasoning. Why should one iwi’s progress be held up because another iwi has decided not to engage? So I thank the Minister for that explanation.

I would also just like, if the Committee could indulge me for a second, to express my concern around the occupation at the airport, and it is to do with the opportunity for medical flights to get into the airport. I believe that as of today there are some 60 people whose health issues could be jeopardised by the doctors and specialists not being able to fly in and out, and those 60-odd people are all the whanaunga of the people who are agitating at the airport. I am told that there are children waiting for operations. I am told that there are people with mental health issues who are waiting for psychiatrists to come up. If those people do not get the treatment they need, who knows what may happen to them? As the person I spoke to on the phone earlier this morning said, if they go off and cause problems in the community, then it just causes more troubles.

So I would like to think that the protesters have the right to protest. I think that they have made their point, but for the good and the health and well-being of the people of Kaitāia—all of their whanaunga—I think that they should stand down from their protest. I believe that if someone has a heart attack and the hospital cannot deal with it and they need to be air-evacuated out, the hospital does not call in a helicopter for that; they actually fly in a plane. The airline is concerned about flying its pilots and its staff into a situation that may turn volatile. We do not know what people may do that might endanger the flights. So, as I say, I would like to think that the protesters have made their point. They should now stand down, for the well-being of the people of Kaitāia.

But, as I say, I am not going to drag this out any longer. Ngāti Kuri, Te Aupōuri, NgāiTakoto, and Te Rarawa have waited long enough for this day. Kia ora.

There is a fundamental principle that you cannot fix a wrong by creating another one. At the second reading of this legislation, New Zealand First pointed out, in respect of the negotiations, that certain claimants claimed rights, and that was dismissed by the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. The fact is that the airport at Kaitāia is closed today. That is the northernmost airport in this country, and my colleague Kelvin Davis has spelt out how important it is. Yet this bill is before Parliament today, and the Minister himself, probably out of a sense of guilt, decided to raise voluntarily a critical part in it. That is in respect of NgāiTakoto’s claim of half of the airport. The question is whether the protest is based on a possible, valid, legitimate claim, and whether it has a basis in law. The law is very clear on this matter in this sense: that land taken under the Public Works Act, if no longer to be used for that purpose, should be first offered to the original owners. The real question here, then, is it is still being used as an airport and the Government has decided to change ownership, but is that change back to the original owners? That is the question for which the answer is in dispute, and that is why we have a protest now.

It is all very well for the Minister to say “when the miscreants will get lost”, “no place for this kind of oafishness”, and “politicians”—to quote him—“don’t get involved in police matters”. Well, with respect, this is day two of the airport being obstructed, and the people of the far north, be they Māori or European, are entitled to have a better answer than that. If this is a baseless claim, then let the lawful authorities do their duty. But we are not going to stand by up north while a critical facility in a neglected region is itself closed. We already have lost on 1 April the services of Air New Zealand. We have an interim service from Barrier Air, and now it cannot operate. So I am asking the Minister what the Government intends to do. He can recite the 2013 statement in respect of the claim of authority that he just gave, except, of course, last month the Wellington High Court instructed the tribunal to reconsider Ngāti Kahu’s request. So let us have the latest law, not the one that is being superseded, in terms of a decision at the Wellington High Court.

What does the Government propose to do—shove the legislation through all its readings today, and if it is erroneous as to the claimants’ rights with respect to the airport, then that will be imposed by law? Or does the Government intend in this case to send that bill back to the select committee to sort out the rightful answer to the question that is being asked? I think that everybody up north, Māori and European, is entitled to hear more than that from the Minister today. He comes from a Cabinet that, after all, has a Minister of Police. I would like to know what is going to happen, because all people, regardless of their background, are going to be damaged. What we will not do is stand by and do nothing.

We want the Minister to tell us today what he intends to do. If he is going to say: “Oh, well, Ngāti Kahu can wait all the way until September 2018.”, what about the airport? When is it going to be operative? Will it be operative this afternoon? Will the Government make a decision? Will the Minister of Police ensure that this airport is reopened? Because what cannot go on is this matter being timed to stop this important facility, which, if it is allowed to continue, will damage the health and economic interests of everybody in the far north, and they cannot afford that. So could we please have an answer to the question being put?

I am not siding with any claimant on this matter, but if you have got two claimants, there is a ring about that and it concerns me. It is not the first time. Remember Paraparaumu Airport? Remember it being given back to the original owners? No, the last National Government did not do that. His colleagues did a closet deal with a private interest. And then you have got Hood Aerodome in Masterton. Was it offered back to the original claimants? No. It was sold to the Masterton District Council for $1.

We are not going to have these compounding mistakes made by this Minister, who sits beside everybody else as though they are not aware of the facts. With respect, Minister, some of us have lived in the north a darned sight longer than you have.

And some of us have read the legislation and the deed a darned sight more carefully than the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Let me repeat again for the right honourable member in words that are simple and clear: the occupiers have no right to interfere with members of the local community carrying out lawful activities. Occupation is not the way to address these issues. As I said in my first contribution, both Ngāti Kahu and NgāiTakoto have interests in the airport. I refer—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I don’t agree.

Well, the member may not agree, but I suggest that he read the 2013 remedies report. It may be instructive for him. Kaitāia Airport is already—read the lips—available to Ngāti Kahu through the Treaty settlement process as a deferred selection property. It is available at 50 percent because of the conjoint interests. That is the point that the member steadfastly refuses to acknowledge or inquire as to the correctness of the position.

So before getting on his high horse in this Chamber and giving one of his contributions, which are always very impressive although utterly devoid of fact, can I suggest that he read the deed of settlement, read the 2013 remedies report, and then speak from the basis of someone who is properly instructed on the facts—a novelty, but a very worthwhile occupation.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek to table the debate pack, which the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations clearly has not read, which refers to the 2015 decision at the High Court in Wellington.

What is the source of the debate pack?

Well, it probably comes from the Minister himself, but he has not read it.

No, that is not a point of order and the leave will not be put.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 113 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Parts 1 to 15, schedules 1 to 22, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

The Committee divided the bill into the Ngāti Kuri Claims Settlement Bill, the Te Aupouri Claims Settlement Bill, the NgāiTakoto Claims Settlement Bill, Te Rarawa Claims Settlement Bill, the Ngāti Kahu Accumulated Rentals Trust Bill, and the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act 1977 Amendment Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 114.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.