Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill

Tēnā koutou e Te Whare nui. Not one more acre. Tangata whenua means people of the land, not a landless people. Tangata whenua means people who have land. That remaining land needs to stay in their hands. Not one more acre. No more public works confiscations. The Government has a responsibility under Te Tiriti o Waitangi to protect Māori land from alienation for the benefit of future generations. This can happen if everyone in this House—every party—will vote for my bill tonight. We can act on our responsibilities. We can demonstrate what was just demonstrated in the previous bill, which was cooperation to achieve something positive.

Less than 5 percent of land in Aotearoa is still held in Māori customary and freehold ownership, so it is unacceptable that the Public Works Act can still be used in the 21st century to confiscate remnant remains of Māori whenua. Whether this Parliament votes for this bill or not, we are going to keep fighting for this. We have received huge support from Māori across the country, with almost 5,000 petition signatures. At every consultation hui on Te Ture Whenua Maori Bill, the Public Works Act was raised as an issue. We do not have answers from the Government yet as to how that would be addressed. If I knew how that was going to be addressed, I could let this bill go, but there is no clarity in what we have seen of Te Ture Whenua Maori Bill that that is the case. Until I know that there is a way to protect remnant whenua Māori—customary and freehold Māori land—from public works, we will not let this go.

We have heard so many stories of the suffering and confiscation that has been endured as a result of the Public Works Act. “What public?”, we might ask. Not the public who are customary or freehold Māori title owners who have been forced or manipulated away from their land. So I say to this House: no more pressure to sell. No more divide and rule. It is time for a united approach to the remnants of whānau land. Not one more acre. Once it is gone, it is gone. The land is a taonga to these people. Not one more acre. Kia ora.

Kia ora, e Te Mana Whakawā. It is my pleasure to take this call on the Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill in the first reading. In the lead-up to this bill coming to the House, I have had a number of people speak to me about it with the assumption that, as someone of Māori descent with a number of interests in Māori land, I would be supporting this bill wholeheartedly. That is not the case. But before I get into the reasons, I think this bill is unnecessary and quite unhelpful, actually. I want to acknowledge some of the common ground, though, that has actually been covered.

The Public Works Act was in the past often used as a mechanism to alienate Māori land. A huge percentage of alienation of Māori land actually happened because of this Act. Our land was preferred for public works because Māori had less political power than anyone else, actually, in this country, and so could not so effectively fight back against the alienation of land. Seizure of land under the Act happened without consultation—indeed, with barely any communication—and, in many cases, the public works for which the land was used did not actually benefit Māori. In some cases there was no compensation paid for Māori land, which was illegal under the Act, but, nevertheless, it was another example of an abuse of power by the Government of the day. But that is not how the Public Works Act works in practice today—that is not how it works in practice today. The practices that allowed wholesale alienation of Māori land without consultation are actually no longer allowed under the Act—they are no longer allowed under the Act.

We have debated many Treaty settlement bills in this House that provide full and final settlement to iwi for the confiscations that occurred under the previous versions of the Public Works Act—under the previous versions of the Public Works Act. Given the settlements and, often, official apologies that have been given and accepted for past wrongs and the fact that there is no prospect of the Public Works Act being used for ongoing confiscation of land, that is why I do not believe that this bill is necessary. And, given the way this bill creates a different regime for Māori and non-Māori, I believe it actually has the potential to do more harm than actual good.

If the member and her party believe that land should never be acquired for a fair price for public works, then the member’s bill she puts up should be to scrap the Public Works Act—just scrap it. That is not something that I would agree with, because I think there are certain works that are in the public interest, and the Government should actually have the power to compulsorily acquire that land. If the member was to disagree with me and put it up as a bill to repeal the Public Works Act, I could respect it, but what she has actually done instead is put up a bill that suggests that, as a Pākehā, her land should be open to compulsory acquisition, while the Māori land in which I have interests needs a special protection not afforded to her land.

“Division” and “separatism” are words that are thrown around very lightly by some who oppose Treaty settlements, who argue that the only way to be united in this country is to ignore the wrongs of the past and actually forget about our Māori heritage. These are words too often used as a dog whistle to those whose views are, at best, the result of ignorance of our history or, at worst, outright racism, but many of these terms have been misused to oppose Treaty settlements. Māori involvement in resource management, or in pretty much any policy that seeks to advance Māori or compensate them for the wrongs of the past—the risk of separatism and racial division in our country, as we know, is still very, very real. This bill is the kind of provision that I believe does lead to separatism and, actually, racial division.

Treaty settlements have a huge potential to bring our country together. So many things this Government is doing to improve educational outcomes for Māori, to lift families out of poverty, and to do a better job for our most vulnerable mokopuna have the potential to eliminate the divisions that currently exist between Māori and Pākehā.

Māori have been disadvantaged in this country for far too long, and I know that the sponsoring member and I will agree on that—we will agree on that—but the solution to that problem is to acknowledge the Crown’s past wrongs, to deliver the apologies that iwi have been waiting so long for, to deliver the redress that provides a way forward for iwi, to acknowledge the special place that iwi have in our country under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and to move into the future with a new relationship and a new understanding between the Crown and Māori. But the new relationship cannot be built on having special privileges for Māori. It cannot be built on special privileges.

“Māori privilege” is actually a loaded term. It is a loaded term, and another that is so often misused. Māori have been told that we are privileged since before the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, but in most cases that just means we have had the privilege of having our land taken from us and our rights trampled on.

There is no such thing as Māori privilege, but, in overturning and moving on from decades of ill-treatment by the Government, our road to the future is not to have privilege bestowed on us by the member’s bill. Our road to the future is to live as equals in our nation under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, with the full rights and responsibilities of citizenship. That was what the Treaty of Waitangi should have given us; instead, we got ripped off and disenfranchised. But the solution is not to create new rights for Māori that are not afforded to every other New Zealander. We do not want to be a special class with special privileges—we do not want to be that. We just want to be equal citizens in our own country.

I cannot support this bill, despite Catherine Delahunty’s best intentions. They are your best intentions, but this is not the right thing for Māori and it is not the right thing for New Zealand, so I cannot support this bill. Kia ora.

I am quite stunned, actually, by that contribution from the member Nuk Korako. If he is talking about separatism and division, we just need to look at how Māori over the years have been separated and divided from our land. Māori used to possess 100 percent of the land; we are now down to less than 5 percent of the land, and yet he talks about equality and not being separate. Look, quite frankly, I am disappointed. I mean, there have been so many ways that Māori have been separated from their land—from our land, I should say—over the years.

Let us look at some of the ways—the old land claims, for example. Back in the day, a settler would turn up and say “I’ve purchased 10,000 acres from this old chief up north.”, and then the Crown comes along and surveys it and says: “Actually, you’ve only purchased 1,000 acres.” You would think that the other 9,000 acres would be returned to that old chief up north, but instead it would go to the Crown. That is wrong.

Let me give you an example: think of the area south of Whangarei, around Ruakākā and Waipū. There was a Waipū Block that was 40,000 acres; the Ruakākā Block was 14,800 acres. Not a single acre is left for the Patuharakeke tribe around that area, because it was taken to settle Nova Scotian settlers. Also in that area—people wonder why there is only one marae in that area, Takahiwai. That is because James Busby, 6 weeks before the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, went out and—for the princely sum of £40—bought a few knick-knacks, 60 blankets, and a mere 100,000 acres of land. Some 25 years later he was compensated—because he ended up losing that land—£36,000. What a capital gain over 25 years: from £40 to £36,000. Those sorts of transactions went on all the time, and it is why we are at the point where we are now: where Māori own less than 4 percent of the land. It was taken for settlers.

We just need to read—in fact, consider the Taranaki. It is interesting that we have been talking Taranaki all evening. We just need to read the Taranaki claims bills and see the lengths that were taken to dispossess the people of Taranaki of millions and millions of acres. We have heard the story about Parihaka: how, through peaceful protest, the villagers of Parihaka went and pulled up survey pegs and that—and for that sort of resistance, they had their land confiscated.

💬 The Native Land Court: that was just a mechanism to separate and divide Māori from their land. Instead of land being held in tribal ownership, the land was divvied up—10 owners per block—and then it was easier to pick off those owners and land. The tribes and Māori were dispossessed from their land.

We just need to look at rates—the way Māori could not afford rates, even though they got no services. I remember reading some research around the Ngāpuhi settlements. There are some beautiful islands in the Bay of Islands. Māori could not afford the rates—the rates were for street lighting, rubbish collection, and all that sort of stuff—on this island where nobody lived. But because they could not pay for the rates, the land was confiscated. They were compensated by a bit of land in Whangarei around the area of Ōtāngarei. No disrespect to the area of Ōtāngarei, but if you compare that with living on one of the islands in the Bay of Islands—I know where I would prefer to live.

The Public Works Act has been used, for example, to build schools. Then, when the schools have closed down, the land does not necessarily go back to the original owners—it certainly does not swiftly go back to the original owners—so whānau have been dispossessed from their land through that mechanism.

We in the Labour Party support this bill to the select committee. Personally, as a Māori, I think it is really good. Catherine Delahunty, I appreciate the fact that you have put this in the ballot and that it has been drawn. I certainly was a little bit dismayed at the contribution from the speaker before me. Thank you.

I am here, obviously, to take a call on the Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill. It will be no surprise to the House that I oppose this bill, for a number of reasons that I am very happy to elucidate.

First and foremost I acknowledge the words that my colleague Nuk Korako shared—I think, with quite an eloquence there—in raising the arguments, particularly around how this bill does the opposite of what it intends to do. It does not actually bring people together; it does not facilitate healing; it actually encourages a separatist mind-set, which is somewhat paradoxical coming from the Green Party, which talks about human rights and communitarian principles, and so forth.

I think my fundamental problem with this bill is that it is an attempt to fight injustices of the past by passing a bill that looks towards the future. I doubt that anyone in this House who looks back to how Māori land was acquired in the past would say that it was a good thing. People would acknowledge, quite rightly, as would I, that the Public Works Act was used to facilitate that—that is, the Public Works Act of the past. In many ways, this bill is just trying to—I would argue—tokenistically fight the battles of the past in a way that is incredibly unhelpful. We have a process in place through the Treaty settlements to address a number of the elements that have been raised here today, including from the previous speaker, Kelvin Davis. So this bill, I remind the member Catherine Delahunty, who put the bill forward, strikes me as rather tokenistic and as trying to fight the past and relitigate the past.

We do not have this issue at the moment. We have a Public Works Act that applies to all land, regardless of one’s ethnicity. If, in theory, roads were being built and gerrymandered, if you will, to acquire only Māori land, then maybe there would be some credence in this discussion, but that is not the case. The Public Works Act, in modern-day New Zealand, is there for roads, for schools. It is not done willy-nilly; it is done very cautiously. In fact, I have got a situation in my own electorate at the moment where there is a suggestion that the Public Works Act may be used to acquire a small piece of land. In fact, the Green Party might like it, because it is for a cycleway, but it is actually raising some controversy and there is a lot of discussion. Funnily enough, the discussion does not need to be about who owns the land, per se, on the basis of ethnicity; it is about whether the land is needed for the good of the community. I have been struck that speakers, particularly those in support, so far have not mentioned the community. That is the point of the Public Works Act in modern New Zealand: to facilitate the needs of the community.

Fundamentally too, what has been missed out—probably conveniently—is that, actually, if the Public Works Act is invoked at the moment and it does touch on Māori land, then an application needs to be made to the Māori Land Court. Others who will have a much deeper insight into the Act may be able to speak to that, but there is already a process in play here, and that, in and of itself, is relatively important. So I cannot support this bill in any shape or form. I do not think it has a place in modern-day New Zealand, I do not think it has a place in mature discussions, and, particularly—I want to stress again—I do not think it has a place in a mature discussion that allows us to confront the past and the injustices of the past. This, in a sense, retrenches some of those mind-sets or behaviours, and I do not personally believe that is the way forward.

I want to reiterate that we have a mature process at the moment—in fact, we were trying to do it, dare I say it, come this Friday—where, through Treaty settlements, through robust discussion and debate, we do look back at the falsities done under the name of the Crown and we do look at the falsities done under the Public Works Act. This bill, in and of itself, does not address that. I personally see it as particularly harmful, ultimately, to that dynamic. I think it is really important too to understand what the Act in the past was used for—that being the Public Works Act—and what it is used for now.

In fact, the previous speaker, Kelvin Davis, noted schools. Yes, he noted that once land is acquired it is not handed back to people, by and large, unless it is part of a Treaty settlement—in fact, I am thinking of a piece of land in my own electorate in Glen Innes that I am pretty sure was acquired under the Public Works Act. It was a school, but under the Treaty settlement, I think, one of those rights of first refusal has been put in operation. So, again, I do not think that this is a mature approach to the Public Works Act, and I just reiterate that relitigating the past by trying to adopt a piece of legislation for the future is not a useful way forward for this country. Thank you very much.

I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First and to signal to the honourable member, Catherine Delahunty, that, unfortunately—regretfully—we will not be supporting this bill. I thank the contribution from the honourable member on the other side of the Chamber, Nuk Korako, who gave some very good reasons. In fact, I would have thought that came straight out of a New Zealand First handbook, that speech—talking about equality, one rule for all, and all of those things. We will probably frame it, and when that member applies to join the fastest-growing political movement in the nation, we will drag it out on his candidature.

I guess the thing I need to say is that it has been a bit of a day of contradictions, has it not? We have a bill being put up by the Green Party that seeks to end the confiscation, or the taking, of land by the Crown under the Public Works Act, and yet this is the same party that has sat there and wholly supported the Kermadec legislation, which sees the Crown take a property right off Māori.

💬 Catherine Delahunty: Did you hear Metiria on the radio?

And we have to say—it does not matter what the Green Party is saying right now, I say in response to that little interjection. I sat in the select committee, I saw the clause by clause voting, and I have heard the rhetoric. People may wish to dance on a pinhead and adjust their position because, politically, it is proving to be an untenable position, but it is totally contrary to the way we see things for a party to say that the Crown should not confiscate or take one more acre of land from Māori, using the Public Works Act, whilst at the same time endorsing the confiscation of a property right from Māori under the Kermadec legislation. This just does not match. It is like “One of these things is not like the other”. If I could put it more simply than that, I would, but that is as simple as I can put it.

There is something else about the bill that smacks of a little bit of paternalism and a little bit of maternalism. You are coming down to Māori, saying: “Look, we’ll do this for you, make it all look better.” The truth is that many of us who have been engaged in Treaty settlement negotiations—myself for 10 years plus, for my iwi—have been dealing with these issues, with the honourable Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, for a long time.

If I take the Wairarapa, for example—there are numerous examples. In fact, one of my own marae, Hurunui o Rangi, in the Carterton district—or the Taratahi district—had land taken off it for a road that was put through. Unfortunately, what that did was it separated our marae from our urupā, and they did not just take the strip they needed for the road; they took a whole lot more. The Minister is very familiar with this, because he has had a tour through there. They did not take just the piece of land they needed for the road; they took more, and then they kept it. They never offered it back after they had built the road. In fact, they dug a big hole in it and used the aggregate out of that hole for roading, then turned that hole into a rubbish dump, which it still is to this very day. It needs cleaning up, thank you very much. We have discussed these matters with the Minister, we negotiated these matters as an iwi, and we have come to what we believe will be a lasting and enduring settlement.

We know that there are issues about the Public Works Act, but if we are to redress that, we should redress the fairness in the way settlements are made, so that the Crown gives fair and proper compensation to those people who are having their land taken, be they Māori, Chinese, Indian, non-Māori, Pākehā, or whatever blend they might be. There should be one law across the whole of the nation in respect of this. It should not single out Māori; to do so stigmatises them, demonises them, and sets them up for criticism as receiving something special that other New Zealanders do not get. That is fundamentally wrong.

Yes, there are issues with the Public Works Act. Look at how the Public Works Act has been changed recently to enable affordable housing, rather than offering the land back to the original owners: Hobsonville, all these other properties—Ardmore. Look at Hood Aerodrome—that was sold off to the Masterton District Council for one dollar. That should have been offered back to its original owners, the iwi.

There are issues in there, but let us deal with those issues in a sensible way, rather than have a carte blanche solution, such as this bill imposes, that will be seen as inequitable—actually, racist and separatist—and will not resolve the problem in the long run. Thank you very much.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. Before I start I want to congratulate the member Catherine Delahunty on getting a bill drawn out of the ballot. Some of us will probably live in this place for years and never get a bill drawn out of the ballot. I am starting to think like that myself. I also want to say, before I start on what I am going to talk about, that I do have some sympathy for the origins of this bill. I am not going to support it, however, and I will give the reasons for that as well.

If you think about the history of New Zealand—and there has been a lot of talk today about where people come from, and where they live, and whatever else. My family comes from the Rangitīkei. We have been there since 1850. In that time we have been subject to the Public Works Act. We have also been subject to the Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act 1915 and the Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act 1943, so I have some sympathy for the grievances that a number of the previous speakers have talked about. However, that is no reason for us to pass this bill.

Imagine the Government now passing a law that confiscated a whole lot of land off people compulsorily and giving it to someone else, which is, effectively, what those three Acts I am talking about enabled. Those days are long gone, and I think Nuk Korako, in his speech to the House, talked about the fact that the world is so different now. We have made a lot of attempts in this Parliament to rectify the wrongs of the past. We will never entirely get to that point, but Minister Finlayson, with his work, and many of our other Ministers, both in this Government and in previous Governments, have made significant attempts to change and rectify things that have happened in the past that perhaps should not have happened. I think there have been many gross injustices in the past, some of them brought about by the Public Works Act and many by other means. As I said, the country has changed significantly in that time, and I think we are in a pretty good space now in respect of how we acquire land.

Local government—I was involved in local government for quite some time, before coming here—has to get its planning right. It has to enable public infrastructure to be built—so does central government—and the only way we can effectively enable infrastructure to be built for the future and for future generations of New Zealanders is to plan it well and make sure that it is put in place in a manner that, I guess, does the best for our communities. Sometimes—in fact, very seldom; I understand this Act has only been utilised once in the last 10 years, though obviously the threat of it is there—it is necessary to acquire land that people do not want to give up to enable infrastructure to be built. It is essential that a Government has the ability to acquire land from whomever to enable the creation of infrastructure for future generations. That is what this Act was put in place for in 1908, when it was first put in place in New Zealand. It might not always have been used in the manner that we now would intend to use it but, none the less, it is important that we have that ability to use it. It is hugely important as well that we protect the rights of those people whose land is acquired, and I think that we have the facilities in place now to do that.

Catherine Delahunty, in her address, said that there is to be no more divide and rule. I consider that this bill is, effectively, creating a case of divide and rule, and I think it would be very unfortunate for us to go down that track now, having gone through such a lot of pain, certainly in the last 20-odd years, trying to rectify a lot of the stuff that divide and rule caused. Also, in the preamble to this bill it says that the Crown has the responsibility to protect Māori land for future generations. The Crown has a responsibility to protect all land for future generations. We have a responsibility to protect the rights and opportunities for all New Zealanders, and we also have a responsibility to ensure that those people who are privileged enough to own land manage that land in a manner that future generations will be able to utilise and enjoy. I cannot support this bill. I can understand the sentiment behind it, but I do not think it should go any further. Thank you.

I join with Labour colleagues to support the passage of this bill, and acknowledge the effort that its sponsor, Catherine Delahunty, has gone to to put together a case for it to be considered by the select committee.

If we look at the evidence and the current shareholding of Māori land that has been retained, one would see a disproportionate argument in the way in which Government members have said there would be unequal treatment. The reality is that huge tracts of Māori land have been taken, either by confiscation through the Public Works Act, through some deeds of sale that were a little bit dubious, or through a number of measures. But it is right, and I want to acknowledge that Treaty settlements in part are one way to address some of these historical wrongdoings of the taking of Māori land. I believe that the bill should go to the select committee, because there will be a number of families with some very practical examples of where lands have been taken under the Public Works Act for a specific purpose and not given back to the families when it was not used.

Let us look at Te Kūiti, for example, and the aerodrome there. I connect to the people of Maniapoto. This is a very good example where land was taken for a specific purpose, not used for that purpose, and for some reason got acquired by the local council, and then, for some reason, got sold to a local lawyer who happened to be the lawyer of the council. It then became the aerodrome. There is no remedy for that family to be able to get that land back, except by going through a tribunal process, arguing their case, and then saying: “Actually, what was supposed to be a public work, which did not happen, now has to be resolved by a Treaty settlement.” I understand the nature of the historical, I guess, basis on which that issue arose, but you can see how there would be a lack of faith by the several people who have had direct experience of a process that really does fail them.

What this does is it raises issues that sit outside, for example, current processes. One of the biggest challenges for Te Ture Whenua Maori Act is that issues relating to the Public Works Act are not actually addressed at all within the context of that particular bill that is currently being considered by the Māori Affairs Committee. If the Government was genuine about equal treatment before the law, then surely it would want to ensure that this bill at least gets through the first reading and goes to the select committee, so that we can hear the breadth of interest around this particular issue. This is about protecting whenua. It is not about anything else but ensuring that people have a legitimate ability to protect whenua, and I think that is an important thing.

I listened carefully to the chair of our select committee, who is a very good chair, and his concerns around what he said was the unequal treatment in the application of this bill, but you would only have to read the advice coming from the chief legal counsel around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act test, which is that there is justified reason for having a limited discretion in the way in which this bill proposes. I would say on that basis alone the House should seriously consider—if for no other reason than a fair hearing—passing this bill’s first reading so that it would get to the select committee for a full consideration of the way in which the bill could actually impact, not perceptually impact, on the protection of Māori land that sits outside of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, and to then determine the extent to which it is an unequal treatment. I think the determination that was made, which has Minister Finlayson’s name on it, will show that it is quite justified to have a measure of this level, to be able to protect Māori land—what little Māori land is left in Māori hands.

There are numerous examples throughout all our regions where land has been taken from Māori under the Public Works Act, and the avenue to be able to secure it back has been a long and winding road. Many have had no prospect of relief. For that reason alone, to the sponsoring member, Catherine Delahunty, I say that I certainly support the bill going through its first reading and to the select committee. I hope that members will consider it seriously.

I have a great deal of sympathy for this bill, and I think the previous speaker, Nanaia Mahuta, raised some very strong points, because there are cases where the Public Works Act was used for purposes that it should not have been. There are many families who are justifiably aggrieved, and in those days—and you can probably argue these days as well, sometimes—the process in law had reasons it was doing what it was doing other than fairness and equity. A lot of families may have been in that situation that the previous speaker spoke about, and are justifiably looking for some recourse and some way of dealing with those issues, so I take a lot from the previous speaker and her personal example.

I also think that with a lot of returned land that iwi may get now through settlement processes, some of that land is associated with transport routes. It is Government land; it may have been purchased for the New Zealand Transport Agency, railways, or suchlike, so it is very much on infrastructure routes, and so its likelihood of ever being used for public works in the future is probably a bit higher. It is actually in a position where other infrastructure that may be used in the future may actually come along that land, so there could be a particular difficulty in the future with those settlements. It may seem like they are progressing the transfer of land, but it may actually mean that there could be a situation where the Public Works Act comes into effect on that land and causes further dilemmas for the people who did get that land through the settlement.

Those are just two examples you can think of where there are issues in the way the Public Works Act operates in regard to, specifically, Māori land, but all land in particular. There is an argument that the Public Works Act in any case is too strong for any landowner, and that a Government’s ability to do what it wants, or a council’s ability to do what it wants, could sometimes be questioned anyway. That may be a further issue that we need to take into account, because the all-knowing, all-good nature of Government is not necessarily the case at all times.

I actually have a lot of sympathy for the bill. I think it actually raises some very valid concerns. It is something that I appreciate that the Green Party has brought forward to the House, and I thank them for that. I just do not think it is the right solution at this time, though, but I do think that there needs to be more discussion about how we can find a solution for those kinds of issues going forward, because I do not think that families who have felt aggrieved in the past and do not feel they have had any recourse should actually be told to just “suck it up” and wait. I also think there could be issues around future settlements with the land corridors that would be involved—that could actually create some problems. I think you have raised a genuine issue; this probably is not the solution for it, but, certainly, I think that the nature of Parliament is that other solutions come forward over time and can actually try to address that issue as well.

So thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. Although we oppose it, we do understand that there are some very valid concerns involved, and look forward to, in the future—

💬 David Shearer: But you oppose it? You oppose it, do you? It’s very good, but you oppose it?

Yes, we oppose it. A bit like you and the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement—you think it is very good, but you oppose it. It is good that that member is here. Thank you.

Before I call the next member, I do want to remind David Shearer that he appears to have an illicit cup in the House, and I am going to ask him to take it away.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity. I rise to take a short call on the Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill, and I want to congratulate our colleague Catherine Delahunty on being brave and bringing this particular bill in front of the House.

On 14 September 1975 Dame Whina Cooper departed the Far North. That picture of her walking down a lonely dirt road, holding her mokopuna’s hand, is now famous worldwide, and the catch cry of that protest was “Not one more acre”—not one more acre. I think this particular bill is a brave step to make that cry known again, to say: “Not one more acre.”

Mr Bennett speaks about those landowners who have been affected in the past by the Public Works Act, and says they should just suck it up and move on.

💬 David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am going to warn the member that I cannot see a valid point of order, and I am going to warn the member that if he does not make a valid point of order, he will be withdrawing and apologising.

💬 David Bennett: OK. I think you know what I meant.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Disagreeing with a member does not give rise to a point of order. It is called a debate—that is what we are having.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I come from a small place called Ōrauta, approximately 45 minutes north of Whangarei. The Public Works Act took large tracts of my family land—the farm, our neighbour’s farm—to build a railway. That railway was taken out of commission after years of operation. It was taken out of commission and it sat idle for no less than 12 years—12 years—and my family fought long and hard to get that land given back to our family. It runs right along our farm, formerly owned by us, taken by the Public Works Act, and that particular railway sat idle for 12 years. We got no explanation, nobody told us what they were going to use the land for, it was still fenced off, we were not allowed to go on it, and all of a sudden it is now a cycleway. But for those 12 years nobody knew what was going to happen with it—nobody knew what was going to happen with it. We begged local members of Parliament, we begged the council, and we begged ministry officials and asked them to return that land to us—to return that land to us.

Interestingly enough, that particular railway also ran through what used to be known as the Kāwiti station—also taken under the Public Works Act. After the Kāwiti station was decommissioned, they kept the land, took out all of the scoria, and it changed from the Kāwiti station to the ballast pit—all part of my family land.

The Public Works Act has had a significant effect on Māori people. The research tells us now that Māori-owned land is just under 5 percent—just under 5 percent. It is my job—and certainly the job of this House—to ensure that that number does not decrease any more. However, I do temper that contribution by also saying that our country is growing. We do need to grow. We know what the issues are around housing, we do know that infrastructure is a big problem here in Aotearoa New Zealand, and in order for us to be competitive and to grow, we must make parts of land available for that growth. However, given the injustices suffered by Māori for many, many years since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, I support this bill. I say that it is a good, brave step for this Parliament to ensure that no more land is taken without good reason—without good reason—so that families like the Henare family of the Ōrauta valley do not lose large tracts of their land for, in the first instance, a railway that sat idle for far too long and, now, for a cycleway.

I just want to say thank you, Catherine Delahunty, for bringing this bill to the House. We support it in the Labour Party, and we look forward to support right across the House. Kia ora.

I have to confess that when I first became aware of this bill, I thought, initially, it had some merit and warranted a little bit of a closer look. So I did take a closer look to see whether or not this bill would actually achieve some of the things that I thought perhaps it was intended to achieve, but it does not.

We just heard a great, impassioned speech from Mr Henare from over the way there about his family’s experience—

💬 Peeni Henare: Over the railway track.

—from the other side of the railway tracks, yes. There has obviously been something that has gone on that was not ideal for his family. In fact, it would have been great if they had been responded to earlier, perhaps, and if that railway line had not sat empty for 12 years, as you said, before some action was taken. If this bill could do anything whatsoever to resolve that situation, then that would be useful, but guess what? It does not, because, actually, the issue that he would like to see resolved needs a different bill. It needs a different set of legislation. It needs a different policy from the organisations, like the railway, that end up owning that land and making different decisions at different times, to help that family resolve their issue.

There is no doubt that over the history of time in Aotearoa New Zealand, the Public Works Act and other legislation has been used inappropriately to alienate Māori from their land. Successive legislation through the Māori land Act and its various iterations at different times were not proud moments if we are to look at the history of New Zealand and at what was done to Māori in terms of alienating them from their land. That is something that I do not believe that any of us in Aotearoa New Zealand should be proud of. But this bill does not actually put any of that to rights. There are other processes in place, and we are working very hard through our Treaty settlement processes to do what we can to at least make some measure of putting those things right, but this bill, in and of itself, does not.

It has been talked about that not one more acre should be confiscated, and I just want to remind members of the House that the Public Works Act does not allow the Government to confiscate land; it enables the Government to purchase land. I just want to go back to when the Public Works Act was brought in in 1981 and the opening speech by the Hon W L Young, who introduced that legislation. In his opening remarks, he said that “When land is required for essential work, the Bill specifies that a formal notice is to be sent to the owner, inviting the owner to sell the land, and advising the owner of the estimated value of the land. Every effort must be made to negotiate in good faith with the owner in an attempt to reach an agreement acceptable to [them]. Unless these steps are taken, it will not be possible compulsorily to take any land for an essential work.”

This is not confiscation; this is about—under the Public Works Act—giving a fair price for a piece of land that is required by the Government or a local authority for essential work. What Ms Delahunty is actually proposing through this legislation is that a party who owns a particular piece of land will have an ability to stand in the way—the ability to hold the rest of New Zealand to ransom. So if, for example, a piece of land was required to provide flood protection to a significant part of the community—if this legislation was to pass and that piece of land was one of the bits of land that has been referred to in this bill, then the owners of that land would, effectively, be able to write themselves a blank cheque and hold everybody else to ransom, and flood protection would not be provided. That is just one example of what could happen.

I cannot stand here and support that. This bill may have great intentions, but it is certainly not going to achieve any useful intentions, and it is not going to address any of the historical wrongs that have been done. Thank you.

I have been fascinated by this debate, and I recognise the privilege of having five members’ bills selected from the ballot. The National Party may not be on my side, but the gods are, because sometimes an issue needs to be brought into the light and I am very grateful for the opportunity of bringing this issue into the light.

I do need to clarify a few things. First, I want to thank the Māori Party and the Labour Party members for your support still. I really appreciate the support and the speeches, and the understanding that this is an important contemporary issue as well as an historical issue. I clearly need to spell out in simple words that this bill is not an attempt to address historical wrongs, even though they need to be addressed. We need a process for that, and my petition to the select committee may open the door for that. But this bill is to acknowledge that this is about the current risks from the Public Works Act. If we are going to talk about holding the country to ransom, let us talk about who is being held to ransom.

The reason we wrote the bill was that Patricia Grace’s whānau less than 2 years ago were held to ransom. Speakers from the National Party say this is in the past and it cannot happen. What happened, which I described in the first part of my first speech, was that she did not even get told it was going to happen. She found out at the eleventh hour that her land was up for Public Works Act confiscation.

Call it what you like, this is not about—for the benefit of Nuk Korako—blocks of land that are the same. Customary-owned, freehold Māori land collectively owned is not the same as individual title. We are trying to protect what is left of the collectively owned land, of which there is only 5 percent in Aotearoa. We are trying to make sure that that does not shrink. We do not accept the argument that this is separatist or racist or holding anyone to ransom.

The people who are still being talked to by development agencies about taking their land are to this very day being told that the Public Works Act can be used against them. It is a forced sale. What is the difference between that and our previous bad history when it is about the small blocks of collectively owned land that are not addressed—read my lips, National Government—by the Treaty settlement process?

We have to be honest about the risks still existing; the Grace whānau story and what happened to their neighbours just less than 2 years ago is a case in point. Their neighbours lost their land because of the divide and rule tactics of the Transport Agency, which managed to separate them from their land; they did not have the Grace whānau’s ability to challenge. That is not right. It is a contemporary issue. It is not right that it should be still going on.

It is really extraordinary to hear about privilege—that we will be creating privilege. What privilege is there when 96 percent or more of your land is gone and a bill seeks to protect any more being alienated? Where is the privilege in that? This is the time for us to face up to some facts here. We do not live in an equality paradise where every landowner and every whānau or family has the same rights before the law. That does not exist.

If we are going to protect what remains of that land and stop fantasising about the myth of the kind of country we live in—that everything is sorted now because we have got the Waitangi Tribunal process—we will never address the risk of ongoing alienation of Māori-owned land. I am not talking about individuals; I am talking about customary, collective, freehold Māori title. It is not the same. Read my lips: not one more acre of the customary tangata whenua identity should be threatened or manipulated, or divide and rule used for developments that they do not want.

Yes, we need to address the historical injustices, but as a Pākehā, as a person committed to Te Tiriti, I am proud to have stood up in this House, to have brought this bill, to have stood tūturu for this kaupapa. I am not here to create separatism; I am here for justice, because people have told me—as the nearly 5,000 people who signed our petition said—we have been through enough with the Act; no more. They want a line in the sand and I have attempted to draw it, no matter how we vote tonight. Kia ora koutou katoa. Not one more acre!