Point England Development Enabling Bill

I move, That the Point England Development Enabling Bill be now read a second time. Cows or homes—that is the simple choice that Parliament faces with this bill. Point England is a 45-hectare reserve 10 kilometres east of Auckland’s CBD that for over 30 years has had cows grazing on 18 hectares of it. The bill lifts the reserve status on 12 hectares to enable Ngāti Paoa to undertake a housing development alongside 2 hectares that are being provided for a marae as part of their Treaty settlement. The area available for recreation and public space is being increased by 4 hectares.

The bill is a win for housing in providing 300 new homes in close proximity to the city. It is a win for Ngāti Paoa in that it helps settle their historic Treaty claim. It is a win for the community in that it will increase the space for recreation and involve millions of dollars of investment in improving playing fields and community facilities. It is a win for the environment in that Ōmaru Creek, which is one of Auckland’s most polluted and toxic, will be able to be funded for a clean-up. The only losers are the hundreds of cows that will be evicted. I am astonished that Opposition parties, who spend half their time demanding that more houses be built and the other half arguing that New Zealand has too many cows and wants their numbers capped, somehow oppose this bill. I want to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee for its work on the bill and for recommending that it be progressed.

I want to put the bill in the context of the Government’s broader plan for addressing Auckland’s housing needs. There is a broad consensus that increasing supply is the most important component of a solution and that the lack of available land is one of the greatest impediments. That is why our Government created special housing areas where there are already 2,500 homes completed, 4,500 consented, thousands more sections completed, and much more in the pipeline. That is why we introduced the special process for the Auckland Unitary Plan, the urban development national policy statement, the Crown land programme, and the massive developments that are under way in sites like Hobsonville, Tāmaki, Weymouth, and Northcote.

Houses cannot be built instantly, but the Government’s programme is delivering the longest and strongest building boom in Auckland’s history. Back in 2011 only 3,500 homes were being built. It went to 4,000 in 2012, 6,500 in 2014, 7,900 in 2015, and now over 10,000 homes per year are being built in that city and residential investment in Auckland is at an all-time high of over $5 billion a year. But members on this side of the House know we need to do more and that is why we are freeing up underutilised land at Point England.

I do get a bit cross when members opposite demand that new houses be built and then every time there is a development they come up with some reason to oppose it. I note Labour MP Michael Wood has led the charge in opposing the 1,500 homes at Three Kings. I notice Labour and Green members are vigorously opposing the major 400-home development next to Mount Māngere. I noticed they have opposed developments because they are next to cemeteries or they are next to power lines. They are coming up with constant excuses as to why we cannot build more houses, and their opposition to this Point England development is equally duplicitous.

The argument that reserve land is sacrosanct does not wash. Just last year this Parliament put through the revoking of the reserve status of land in Riccarton for a major 400-home development, and members from New Zealand First, Labour, and the Green Party were quite comfortable. If reserve land is sacrosanct, they broke that rule last year.

Equally so, I have to say there is a precedent being created here. The Crown provided the Auckland City Council with this land for recreational purposes over 40 years ago, and it has been used for grazing cows—18 hectares—for over 30 years. If the precedent that this Parliament creates is that if councils do not use reserves for the purpose for which they are intended, the Government might use them for another purpose, then I think that is a valuable precedent for this Parliament to set.

The argument that we could just take some land next door from the Tāmaki Redevelopment Co. is equally flawed. You see, if you take that land next door, that means there cannot be the houses that are planned there. That means fewer homes, not more. Equally so, Ngāti Paoa have made it plain that Point England is their ancestral land, and they will not accept that land next door from the Tāmaki Redevelopment Co. to resolve their Treaty settlement. So that alternative does not resolve that long-term Treaty settlement, nor does it add to the much-needed pipeline of additional housing.

I have also heard the arguments about the dotterels and I have sought technical advice. Actually, the birds move their nesting sites every year. There is no evidence that a marae or housing would any more compromise the future of the dotterels than would the housing that is proposed by Ngāti Paoa, and, with the additional funding, both Ngāti Paoa and the Auckland Council are totally committed to their future.

I am appalled by Labour’s minority view opposing the bill. Those members have sold Peeni Henare and the Māori Labour caucus down the road. Let me quote what Mr Henare, as the MP for Tāmaki Makaurau, said when this bill was introduced. He said: “This particular bill offers an opportunity not just for Tāmaki-makau-rau but, in particular, for Ngāti Paoa,” for whom, he said—and I quote—he was “extremely excited”. He went on to say that this was a “fantastic” bill, that this was a win-win, that it was not just about building houses but that it was about building communities. He went on to say that Ngāti Paoa must be able to “grasp … this … opportunity” and he said—and I quote—“We support this bill.” So Mr Henare has been kneecapped by Phil Twyford once again over-extending himself.

I say to Mr Twyford, thank you for gifting the Asian vote with your misplayed Chinese-sounding names debacle, for which you currently apologise. I am sure that the Māori Party will equally thank you for your opposition to this bill, which has sent a very clear signal to Māori in Auckland that when it comes to the hard yards, it is the Māori Party that will back iwi in Auckland, not the Labour Party.

All this talk about the preciousness of reserve land brings me to this: why is it—and where have the Labour Party and the Green Party and their mates on the Auckland Council been over the last 30 years—that that recreation reserve land has been grazed by a Pākehā farmer and they have said nothing, and now Ngāti Paoa want to put a marae and housing on that land and somehow it is an outrage? That opposition is shallow, it is opportunistic, it shows that Labour is part of the problem and not part of the solution for housing, and it is a political gift-horse for the Māori Party. If I was a member of the Labour Party, I would be questioning the strategic leadership that is being offered over this issue.

This is a good bill. This is a bill that gets 300 more families into houses. This is a bill that enables Ngāti Paoa to settle their Treaty grievance. This enables Ngāti Paoa to be able to have a marae in their ancestral area. I am proud to stand with members on this side of the House, who say that houses in Auckland are more important than cows. I commend the bill to the House.

I want to set out Labour’s position on this bill, but before I begin my comments, I want to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Mr Hauāuru Rāwiri, who is the head man of Ngāti Paoa and someone who has been right in the middle of this whole debate. Labour opposes this bill because the Government has deliberately ignored a better alternative that would have offered Ngāti Paoa a marae and co-governance of the Point England recreational reserve, as well as an adjacent housing development without taking precious city parkland from a community that needs that parkland for future generations.

Labour supported this bill at first reading, and we did so with goodwill because we believed that it deserved serious scrutiny and, on the face of it, it deserved to be taken seriously. But after meeting with all of the groups involved, including repeatedly with Ngāti Paoa, with Auckland Council, with the local board—the Tāmaki-Maungakiekie local board—and a plethora of different community groups who live in the Point England and Tāmaki area, and listening to 104 submissions at the Local Government and Environment Committee, of which about 90 percent were against this bill, we changed our view. We weighed up the evidence, we listened to people, and we decided that this bill is not in the best interests of not just the community at Point England but the whole community, and I will spell out why we think that.

The Minister for Building and Construction has tried to say that this bill is an attempt to fix Auckland’s housing crisis. Well, there are so many things that this National Government should be doing about the Auckland housing crisis that if I listed them all, I would not have any time left to talk about the Point England bill, so I will not. But there are many, many things the Government should be doing. Building houses on city parkland is simply not one of those things. It is not a credible response to the Auckland housing crisis.

The communities at Point England, Glen Innes, and Tāmaki are going to get another 20,000 residents living in those communities in the next 10 years as a result of the intensification that is under way, led by the Tāmaki Regeneration Company. The community and future generations need this parkland—another 20,000 people living in a medium-density community. They need the Point England Reserve, which is one of the most precious open expanses of urban parkland in the Auckland region.

The bill, as Auckland Council has said and as the Tāmaki-Maungakiekie local board has said, sets a dangerous precedent. It is central government overriding the provisions of the Reserves Act and the Resource Management Act to confiscate a piece of public parkland and turn it over to private housing.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: To Ngāti Paoa.

To private housing. Auckland is set to get another million people in the next generation—another million people—and many of those people are going to be living in medium-density and high-density communities. They need parkland. If we take away the parkland for future generations, where will the children play?

Labour has set out over the last few weeks an alternative plan that we believe is better than this bill, and I want to set that plan out for you. The Government is the major shareholder in the Tāmaki Regeneration Company—the TRC. The TRC owns 2,800 homes just over the fence from the Point England Reserve. We propose that the Government stops this bill in its tracks and instead offers Ngāti Paoa 11 hectares of land that is currently owned by the TRC for the commercial redress component of Ngāti Paoa’s Treaty settlement. Co-governance of Point England Reserve could be offered as part of the package, with the opportunity for Ngāti Paoa to build the marae that they want to have established on the Point England Reserve. The Government has already accepted, in principle, the idea that the proceeds of the sale of the 11 hectares should go to enhancing parks in the local community. Well, let the Government put its money where its mouth is and get Auckland Council to match that funding, and use that to enhance the whole reserve—not only for Ngāti Paoa but for the Glen Innes and Tāmaki communities and for future generations.

Nick Smith has tried to make this debate an issue of cows versus houses—cows versus houses. Apparently, the basis of the National Party’s housing policy is now that any land where there are cows grazing is going to be turned over to housing. I say watch out Cornwall Park—watch out Cornwall Park—and half a dozen other regional parks in the Auckland area that have livestock grazing on them, because that is the new National Party housing policy. Any park that has livestock grazing is fair game for housing development.

Nick Smith has said that the Point England Reserve is underutilised, but as the local community group Save Our Reserves said in today’s New Zealand Herald: “Anyone who knows anything about the area will know that the reserve is a much-loved and much-needed public space that is enjoyed by the community year round. Only a minority of the open rural landscape is grazed, and this is to support the funding of the general maintenance of the reserve. These playing fields, three of which will be lost when the land is turned over to housing under this bill, are used by local schools and communities for cricket, kilikiti, football, and rugby league. This is in addition to family and social gatherings. Many people will have seen large public events that have taken place in recent weeks that attracted thousands of members of the Auckland public to the Point England Reserve, including Music in Parks, Movies in Parks, and the hugely popular Weet-Bix Tryathlon.”

It is no coincidence that this bill has been brought to the House by Nick Smith. He is the Minister who, two Budgets ago, brought a list to the Parliament of 500 hectares of land that he was going to build 10,000 houses on as part of his Crown Land Programme. He is the Minister who promised 500 hectares of Crown land 2 years ago; the best his officials can scrape together now is 30 hectares, and not a single house has been built on that land. Secondly, this Minister is the architect of the special housing areas policy that drew lines on the map all over Auckland and promised 39,000 houses. How many have been built 3 years later? Fewer than 3,000. This is the Minister who has made the National Government’s housing policy a joke. He became a figure of fun. That is why he was replaced by Amy Adams—because 5 months out from an election, he was an electoral liability.

This bill is typical of this Minister’s style. This is the way he rolls. He is trying to make the confiscation of a precious piece of public parkland into a Treaty issue. That is what he is doing. He is trying to make the confiscation of public parkland to build 300 private houses—he is trying to make that some kind of solution to the housing crisis. It is the ultimate in playing politics, because it is neither of those things. It is not a serious response to the housing crisis—a housing crisis that has seen a shortfall of 40,000 homes build up on that Minister’s watch. It is getting worse by 7,000 houses a year. Auckland Council said the other day that only 7,000 homes had been built in the last year in Auckland; we need at least 14,000 just to stand still and keep up with population growth. That is the legacy of this Minister: a massive shortfall of housing. Our city has some of the most expensive housing in the world. It has become a speculator’s paradise, and he thinks that confiscating 11 hectares of public parkland that is needed for future generations—he thinks that is some kind of solution to the housing crisis.

Nick Smith is obsessed by the fact that there are some cows grazing 10 kilometres from the Sky Tower—that is the basis of the National Party’s housing policy. But, Minister, we need parkland for future generations. What about in 30 years’ time? What about in 50 years’ time? The fact that there are cows grazing on a small part of the Point England Reserve is being used in the justification, by this Minister, for confiscating about 25 percent of the reserve. It is a nonsense—it is a total nonsense. It has no credibility as any kind of solution to the housing crisis in Auckland.

I rise to support this second reading of the Point England Development Enabling Bill. I want to support the Minister, because he is hard-working. He is delivering results, not just in Auckland but around the country, around housing, and this is a bill that will enable the development of housing in just over 11.5 hectares of land around the Point England Reserve. This piece of land is situated in my electorate of Maungakiekie, and for me this legislation represents an opportunity to use the land for one of the key priorities of our Government, and, indeed, one of the important priorities facing the people that I represent in Maungakiekie, and that is housing. That is the overwhelming feedback that I get from constituents in my electorate: that the Government should prioritise housing needs alongside jobs, infrastructure, health, and education.

Our Government has taken that feedback when setting policy and passing laws—

💬 Phil Twyford: You should be ashamed of yourself.

—as you will see this Thursday, Mr Twyford, when budgets are delivered for the people of New Zealand. Of course, we have had to balance these needs with other competing needs of our community, and these include the need for green space—yes, we acknowledge that—recreational facilities, the environment, and the preservation of reserves.

I have met with many local groups and iwi, including Ngāti Paoa. I do want to acknowledge one of our leaders up in the gallery, Hau; it is good to see you, sir. I have met with groups like the local iwi and the Tamaki Estuary Protection Society, who I think raise some valid points—because I am there to listen, as their local MP. They talk about the enhancement of the environment, they talk about the degradation in the local area, and they also talk about the importance of the ecological site. I respect those points made about preserving reserve status for land and people’s enjoyment of the wildlife.

However, for me, on balance, there is a more pressing need to build 300 more homes for families, and especially for our kids—people who are in need of shelter, warm homes, and clean and modern facilities. That is right—clean and modern facilities. This bill will enable Ngāti Paoa to develop the land as part of its Treaty settlement, and improve the recreational and cultural facilities in our local area. We have already heard tonight about how a marae is planned for the land. Ngāti Paoa, for its part, has undertaken to protect local birdlife, and any development will of course be subject to the scrutiny of the Resource Management Act through routine resource consenting processes. Auckland Council will also play a role alongside the local board to ensure that the appropriate conditions are applied. Most importantly, local people will also get their chance to feed back into that process.

Although the final details of the housing plan for the area have not been finalised, we understand that there is an expectation that a good portion of those homes—contrary to Mr Twyford’s misrepresentations here tonight—will be for social housing and affordable homes. That should help some first-home buyers in our local area get into their first home.

In summary, as the Minister has already stated, 11.5 hectares will be developed for housing, leaving almost 33 hectares remaining on the reserve for recreational purposes. Crucially, as the Minister has pointed out, 100 percent of the proceeds from the land will be reinvested into the local community. That is no reduction in fields, as Mr Twyford again misrepresents the facts here tonight. It is about getting local input from local people that those funds will be used to improve the environmental integrity in places like Ōmaru Creek. The funds could also be used to improve the recreational facilities and the green space in the local area, and we want to make those spaces more amenable and more usable going forward.

On balance, this bill improves the overall well-being of my local people, providing more livable homes, better recreational facilities, and, as the Minister for the Environment has already said, it will improve environmental outcomes locally. We welcome the feedback from local people. Those voices in our community have been heard, they have been respected, and they have been acknowledged and, as a consequence, I commend this bill to the House.

E Te Minita, me puritia e koe i tō mea hei whakapākehā i taku kōrero! E te tuakana, e Hauāuru Rāwiri, e tukuna atu ngā mihi ki a koe nā runga i te ngākau whakaiti, me te ngākau rangimārie kua tōtōia mai te mana o tō tupuna ki roto i Te Whare Pāremata i te rā nei hei whutupōro porotiki e kōrerohia ake nei. Hoi anō tāku atu ki a koe i tēnei wā, kia aroha mai ki tēnei, otirā, ki a mātau e totohe nei i te kaupapa kua whakaritea nei e Te Minita i tēnei wā, kāti Ngāti Paoa, e te tuakana, tēnā koe.

E Te Minita, anei he whakaakoranga Reo Māori mōu. Ko Tāmaki-makau-rau te ingoa o te whenua. Ka huri atu ahau ki te wāhi pōti o tōku tuakana nei a Michael Wood, ko Puketāpapa; huri tū atu ki Te Ihu o Mataoho ki roto o Māngere te whenua e hiahia ana koe ki te whakatū whare. Ka kī mai koe, ka whakatū whare pātata ki ngā urupā, pātata ki ngā rua kōiwi o ngā mātua tūpuna. Ka kī atu ahau ki a koe, he tapu, he taonga, he tapu, he taonga. Ka kī ake rā, ka whakatūria e koe i ētahi whare ki runga i ngā kōiwi o ōku mātua, o ōku tūpuna ki roto o Māngere, Te Ihu o Mataoho, ki runga o Puketāpapa. Tēnā, ka kī atu ahau ki a koe, pokokōhua!

Kāti. Ka huri ahau ki tāu nā kī i taku kōrero i te tuatahi, i te pānuitanga tuatahi o tēnei pire. Āe, e tika ana ka hīkaka te manawa nā runga i ngā kōrero i whakaritea mai e koe mō tēnei Whare. Āe, ka pānui ahau i te pire, ahakoa kīhai au i kite i te ingoa o te iwi o Ngāti Paoa ki roto i te pire. Ka kī atu āe, tēnā pea he huarahi tēnei kia whai oranga a Ngāti Paoa. Tēnā pea he huarahi tēnei kia whai kāinga ngā hunga katoa o Tāmaki-makau-rau. Kāti, ka tū mana ahau ki runga i waku kupu, ka pērā tonu.

Kia mōhio mai koe e Te Minita, ko te whenua e noho nei tātau he manapori. Kia mōhio mai koe, he manapori, he democracy. Koinā te pai o tenei whenua, tā te mea, ka whakaae mātau kia haere atu tēnei pire ki te rōpū whiriwhiri i ngā take nei, arā, ko te select committee tērā. Ko reira, ka rangona ai tātau katoa i ngā kōrero a te hapori, i ngā kōrero a tēnā, i ngā kōrero a tēnā, i ngā kōrero a tēnā. Ko reira, ka whai mana te manapori o Aotearoa. Kaua e pōhēhē nā runga i te pānuitanga tuatahi ka whakaritea nei te mana motuhake mō te pire nei. Kāhore! Koinā te manapori e noho nei tātau.

Nō reira, ka kī atu ahau ki tēnei Minita, ko tana tiro atu ki te take nui o te wā nei, ko ngā take whare, he tirohanga pōnakonako, pōnakonako, short-sighted, nē? Pōnakonako. Koinā te tirohanga o tēnei Minita tā te mea, ka kī mai ki a mātau o tēnei taha o Te Whare, āe, ko taua whenua rā nā Ngāti Paoa. Ko Ngāti Paoa te mana whenua. Mehemea ka whakaae mai Te Minita ki tērā whakaaro, he aha te take ki roto i ngā tatūnga Tiriti ki ngā tau kua pahure ake nei? Kīhai tēnei kāwanatanga i whakahokia te whenua tūturu ki ngā iwi! Kaua e kī mai, nā, ko Ngāti Paoa te mana whenua ki taua wāhi rā, koinā te take e whakahokia atu ana te whenua ki a rātau tā te mea, i tono atu ngā iwi o Waikato, i tono atu ngā iwi o Ngāi Tahu, o ngā iwi katoa puta noa ki a koutou kia whakahokia mai ngā whenua ki a rātau, nō rātau anō te whenua! Kīhai tēnei kāwanatanga i whakahoki ai i te whenua.

Nō reira, kaua e kī mai ki a mātau o tēnei taha o Te Whare, nā, mō te mana me te aroha nui o tēnei kāwanatanga ki ngā mahi tatūnga kerēme. Kaua e kī mai pērā ki a au tā te mea, he nui ngā take kei roto i ngā tatūnga kerēme i ngā tau kua pahure ake nei ka kite atu, horekau he manawanui tō tēnei kāwanatanga mō Te Iwi Māori! Ka pōhēhē mā te pūtea anahe ka tau ai ngā take katoa e pā ana ki a mātau Te Iwi Māori, kāhore, kāhore, kāhore!

Kua rangona ahau i ngā kōrero a tēnei Minita ki roto i ngā tau maha kua pahure ake nei me te kī atu, ka whakaritea e tēnei kāwanatanga te tini whare mō ngā iwi puta noa, mō ngā tāngata puta noa ki roto i a Tāmaki-makau-rau. Ka kī atu ahau ki tērā Minita, e hia nei ngā mano tāngata ka tau mai ki roto i taku tari, e tatari ana kia mana ai te kupu a tēnei Minita mō te whakatū whare ki roto o Tāmaki-makau-rau. Kāre anō mātau kia kite i tētahi paku aha ki roto o Tāmaki-makau-rau. Āe, ko reira tētahi ki roto o Waimāhia, ka mihi atu ahau ki tērā whakaaro ēngari, e hia tau ki muri tērā i whakaritea ai? Ka kite i tōna whakatinanatanga, i tōna tutukitanga ki roto i ngā marama kua pahure ake nei. Ka kī mai tēnei Minita, e hoa, ko te pai o tēnā whenua, anā, ko te wāhi kai mō ngā kau, wāhi kai mō ngā kau? Mehemea ka whakaaro pērā Te Minita, ka kī atu ahau ki Te Minita tēnā, me whakahokia tēnei wāhi whenua ki a Ngāti Paoa, herekore! Mehemea e whakapono ana Te Minita ki tana kōrero, e āwhina atu ana rātau i a Ngāti Paoa, tēnā, whakahokia te whenua ki a rātau herekore, herekore! Ko reira ka kite mehemea e manawanui ana tēnei kāwanatanga ki ngā take Tiriti ka kōrero mai nā e Te Minita.

He raruraru tēnā tā te mea, ki roto i tēnei pire, kāre anō au kia kite atu i tētahi paku kōrero ki te kī atu, ka whakahokia te whenua ki a Ngāti Paoa. Horekau ki roto i tēnei pire. Nō reira, koinā tāku ka noho ki roto i Te Reo Māori, he aha te take i pērā ai? Kia kaua e whātoro, kia kaua e mirimiri tērā taha o Te Whare i waku kupu, kia rongo koutou i te wairua kei roto i ngā kupu, i te hōhonutanga o ngā kōrero ka whakaritea nei ki runga i te marae ātea i te rā nei. Nō reira, ko tāku atu ki tēnei kāwanatanga āianei, ka tango ake i ngā whenua katoa o Tāmaki-makau-rau mō ngā take whare. Rawa au e whakaae ana ki tērā, nā runga i te kī o tēnei kāwanatanga, horekau he take kia whakaritea nei i tētahi huarahi mā Ngāti Paoa hei whakahaere i ngā whare o Te Tāmaki Redevelopment Company. Rawa au e whakaae ana ki tērā whakatau nā runga i te mōhio, ko tēnei kāwanatanga, kei a rātau te mana ki te whakarite i wā rātau ake hiahia. Nō reira, mehemea ka kī mai ki tēnei Whare, anā, kua mutu ai te taha ki a Tāmaki Redevelopment Company. Ē, ka kī atu kāhore, tā te mea, ko ētahi o ngā mana nui o taua kamupene, ko tēnei kāwanatanga, ko tēnei kāwanatanga!

Nō reira, hei whakarāpopoto ake, kei a mātau te mahere tika hei tatū ai i tēnei take whare ki roto o Tāmaki-makau-rau. I whakarite ai mātau i ngā hui puta noa ki roto o Tāmaki-makau-rau e pā ana ki ngā take whare. Kotahi tonu te kōrero ka whakahoki mai ki a mātau, nā, ko te kōnakonako o tēnei kāwanatanga ki te whakatikatika i tēnei take.

Nō reira, ki roto i te meneti e toe nei, ka whakahokia atu ki a koe e te tuakana e Hau. Mō tēnei tūāhuatanga kua kitea mai nā e koe i te rā nei, ka aroha atu. Mō ngā kōrero kua rāwekengia e Te Minita i waku kōrero; ko tāku e kī atu: e toru ngā pānuitanga o te pire! Kaua e pōhēhē nā roto i te pānuitanga tuatahi, tutuki ai! Koinā te mana o tēnei whenua, he manapori. Tēnā e te tuakana, ko te manako kia tau iho mai ngā manaakitanga ki runga i a koe, otirā, ki runga i tō iwi, i tō tāua whānau ki roto o Tāmaki-makau-rau, tēnā tātau katoa.

[Minister Smith, you should hold on to what you expressed as a translation for my address! Acknowledgments to you, elder sibling, Hauāuru Rāwiri, for your heartfelt humility and calm for having the integrity of your ancestor hauled into Parliament House today as a political football that we are debating here. As a result, I seek your empathy for this as we discuss this matter arranged by the Minister at this point in time, and so salutations to you, Ngāti Paoa, the elder sibling, greetings.

Minister, here are some Māori language learnings for you. Tāmaki-makau-rau is the name of the land. I turn to the electorate of my elder colleague Michael Wood, which is Puketāpapa; I turn to face Te Ihu o Mataoho in Māngere, the land where you wish to erect houses on. You said to us that you want to put up houses adjacent to graveyards and places where the bones of the ancestral forefathers are interred. And I say to you, it is sacred, a possession, holy and prized. You then reiterated that some houses would be erected on top of bones that belong to my parents and ancestors within Māngere, Te Ihu o Mataoho, and Puketāpapa. And so I say bugger you!

Enough. I turn now to what you said about my first speech at the first reading of this bill. Yes, it is right that the heart would be keen because of the statements you arranged for this House. Yes, I read the bill, even though I did not see the name of the Ngāti Paoa tribe in the bill. I said yes, this might be a way for Ngāti Paoa to gain a livelihood and for all those Aucklanders to get a house. And so I stand on the integrity of my words and will continue to do that.

You must understand, Minister, the country that we live in is a democracy. That is why this country is good because we agreed that this bill go to the group that considers these matters, in other words, that select committee. That is the place where all of us will hear comments from the community and from that individual, that individual, and that one. It is there that the democracy of New Zealand will be mandated. Do not be deluded that the autonomy for this bill will be assigned through the first reading. No, it is not! That indeed is the democracy that we live in.

Therefore, mine to this Minister is that his view about matters relating to housing being the big issue of the moment is a short-sighted one, short-sighted, all right? Short-sighted. That is the view of this Minister, because he says to us of this side of the House, yes, that land belongs to Ngāti Paoa. Ngāti Paoa has jurisdiction over the land. If the Minister agrees to that thought, what is the reason for the Treaty settlements in recent years? This Government did not return the original land to the tribes! Do not tell us that Ngāti Paoa having jurisdiction over that place is the reason why the land is being returned to them, because the tribes of Waikato, Ngāi Tahu, and all the other ones throughout have demanded that the lands be returned to them, because it actually belongs to them! This Government did not return the land.

So do not tell us on this side of the House about the great integrity and empathy displayed by this Government in the operations about Treaty settlements. Do not talk like that to me, because there are many issues relating to Treaty settlements in years past where it has been seen that this Government was not tolerant with Māoridom. It mistakenly thought that funding alone would settle all matters relating to us of Māoridom, no, no, no!

I have heard the comments by this Minister in the many years past when he said that this Government would arrange many houses for tribes and people throughout Auckland. I say to that Minister, many thousands of people have arrived in my office, waiting for this Minister’s word to be enacted to build houses in Auckland. We have not seen a single thing put up in Auckland. Yes, there is one in Waimahia, and I acknowledge that thought, but how many years back did it take to arrange that? We note its development and completion in months just past. This Minister states, mate, that land is really good, yes indeed, great for cows to graze on—for cows to graze on? If the Minister thinks like that, then I say to him, return this parcel of land to Ngāti Paoa without any encumbrances. If the Minister believes what he has stated, they are helping Ngāti Paoa, so return the land to them, freehold and without conditions. We will then see just how tolerant this Government is to Treaty matters that the Minister alludes to.

That is a problem, because I have not seen a single statement in this bill saying return the land to Ngāti Paoa. There is not anything in this bill. And that is the reason why I remained speaking in Māori, and why did I do that? So that side of the House would not stretch or massage my words, so that you collectively hear the spirit within the words and the depth of the comments that would be considered on our forum today. So mine, in particular, to this Government is that there is no pathway considered for Ngāti Paoa to administer the houses that belong to the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company. I would never agree to that ruling, knowing full well that this Government has the power to determine what it really wants. Therefore, if this House was to direct otherwise, well, then the part for Tāmaki Redevelopment Company is finished. But hey, it will not, because this Government is one of the big powers of that company, this Government!

So to sum up, we have the right plan to settle this housing issue of Auckland. We considered having forums throughout Auckland about housing issues. There has only been one response that came back to us, and that was about the short-sightedness of this Government to address this issue.

Therefore, in the remaining minutes, I come back to you, elder sibling, Hau. In regard to this kind of situation you have witnessed today, I empathise with you about the comments. The Minister tampered with my comments; I say this: there are three readings. Do not be deluded that through the first reading it is settled. Democracy, indeed, is the charisma of this country. And so the hope for you, elder sibling, is that acts of kindness descend upon you but at the same time upon your tribe and our family in Auckland. My appreciation to us all.]

It is a pleasure to be talking to the Point England Development Enabling Bill, this being the second reading. As we have heard, this bill is about taking 11.7 hectares out of a total of 48 hectares, of which the Crown owns 45 hectares, and using that for housing. Specifically, there are 300 new houses to be built, a mixture of social, affordable homes as well as other homes. I have listened to my colleagues who have talked about the merits or otherwise of using this land, and also the need for housing in Auckland. As we all know, there is an overwhelming need for housing in Auckland, but what I want to turn my mind to at this stage is just to talk about the issue of Ngāti Paoa. I certainly listened to the speech—

💬 Tracey Martin: They’re not mentioned in the bill.

—from my colleague opposite, Peeni Henare. Whilst the Ngāti Paoa situation is not specifically mentioned in the bill, clearly, one of the intentions of the Government is to conclude a historical Treaty of Waitangi settlement with Ngāti Paoa.

Opposition parties have made a number of claims. They claim that the iwi should be given, or should negotiate, some land around the Tāmaki land settlement coming out of the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company, and that that is the land that they should be entitled to and that should be used for meeting settlement requirements. Secondly, I have heard on other occasions that Ngāti Paoa—this is the aspersion—do not have the expertise to develop the 300 houses that they would like to. Thirdly, by implication, because Ngāti Paoa do not have the expertise, then this land may be offered to other iwi and, failing that, might even be offered to developers. Well, they are wrong, and we are very lucky to have a senior representative from Ngāti Paoa up in the gallery here. I do acknowledge him.

It is clear, first of all, that Ngāti Paoa have a very strong cultural, traditional, spiritual, and ancestral commitment and connection with this land that we are talking about. Secondly, this piece of land is absolutely crucial to their settlement. They do not want the Tāmaki development land; they want this piece of land. And related to that, the coinciding position and the enhancement of the marae—the two hectares that will be set aside for the marae on the land right beside the housing development that they wish to undertake—is also a crucial element of that settlement and very important. I think that the Opposition parties have truly misrepresented that situation.

Next, the aspersion that iwi do not have the expertise to undertake this development I find personally insulting. Ngāti Paoa have talked about an investment company being set up to work through that, and I think they do have the expertise and they do have the right intent. Finally, I think the persuasion that they want to create social and affordable houses on this site is a very valuable part of their offering. So I do have a great deal of faith that Ngāti Paoa will do what is correct. I do believe that this bill is the right thing to do, and I fully endorse it. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, huri noa ki a tātau katoa tēnā koutou.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to us all throughout, acknowledgments to you collectively.]

The Green Party is abstaining on this legislation, and I am going to outline very clearly why, alongside my colleague Eugenie Sage. I want to be firstly clear that I am not speaking for Ngāti Paoa, but we cannot oppose this bill because we support Ngāti Paoa fully. I too want to acknowledge Hauāuru Rāwiri and his team for allowing us to engage with them on this issue, once we heard the submissions. We have come to the second reading in the House having engaged with community, with mana whenua, and having listened to all sides of the debate on this legislation. We trust Ngāti Paoa more than we trust the Crown—that is for sure. Iwi have a long history of conservation and a better record than the Crown and local government when it comes to taking care of our environment and our people.

The historical context is important for the Greens’ positioning on this piece of legislation. The Ngāti Paoa land was lost through Treaty breaches, and the land was lost for a pittance—an absolute pittance. The Crown in 1841 paid £100 in cash, plus £258 in goods, to obtain 6,000 acres, including waterfront—precious waterfront—land. So that is £358-odd for 6,000 acres, which even at that time was ridiculously low—ridiculously low. I did a rough inflation estimation of what that buying price would look a little like today, and at my lowest, lowest estimation, that is £35,000. So even if I am 10 times out, that is an absolute pittance, and that is the core of the injustice that this legislation gives Ngāti Paoa a chance to rectify—albeit that the Crown is hitching its housing failure to it. The Hauraki Māori Trust Board report, which is something I also delved into to learn how that land got lost for such a pittance, also suggests that the customary interests that were extinguished—of course, Ngāti Paoa did not understand and think that those were going to be extinguished. That was not known to iwi around the country. So the Crown failed to protect Māori interests and paid a pittance for the land, with hardly any benefits for that incredibly low cost.

We cannot oppose this bill because Ngāti Paoa has a whakapapa connection to the whenua; to the tūturiwhatu, the dotterels; to the awa; to its own descendants and uri; and to the local community. The Ngāti Paoa people have an accountability that this Government does not. They have an accountability that means that they will be at the front line of working hard to make sure that the visions and plans that they have will be upheld, where people are left living with dignity. They care, and I have a huge issue with the Government pretending that that is why it is pushing this legislation through. All of a sudden the Minister stood and praised the vision in the work of the Ōmaru River that might be done through this legislation. Where were you long ago when the Ōmaru River needed a hand? Where was this Government then? What has happened is that the Minister, Nick Smith, has failed to provide housing for its own citizens for the entire term of its Government, and now it is having to do a patch-up job, and this legislation is part of that. We support Ngāti Paoa in their visions for what they want to do for their land. This is a last shot for them to have a tiny part of the injustice rectified for what happened in 1841, before that, and to this day. That is why we cannot oppose this bill.

We too understand that the Tāmaki redevelopment land as an option was not an option—certainly not a viable option; more like a commercial liability. We have seen that happen somewhere before: Invercargill. The Minister made a botch-up of those sales of those houses. We, surely, can understand why Ngāti Paoa had a look at was being offered, had a look at how that was going to play out, and it did not look well. It did not look well for Ngāti Paoa. So we understand that that was not a viable option, and, yes, we need more houses. Māori in particular are featuring disproportionately in low homeownership and in homelessness, so we want homes to be built, and when that programme is led by iwi—that is why we cannot oppose this bill.

The Government, as I said, has hitched its housing failure to this legislation, but that means that Ngāti Paoa—this is their chance. This is Ngāti Paoa’s chance. We cannot oppose the bill, because this is Ngāti Paoa’s chance, and we are proud of our stand in Te Tiriti as the Green Party.

My colleague Eugenie Sage is also going to expand on our valid reasons for not being able to support this legislation. I too heard the submissions from local communities, and they were clear. Yes, we absolutely support appropriate decision making. Again, the Crown botched this decision-making process right up, and the community is not happy. The legal process for the normal, democratic rezoning of open space has completely been swiped. That outlines the reasons why, as the Green Party, we also simply cannot support this legislation.

I just want to, as I start summing up, pick up again on how much it displeases me when the Minister and his Government can pretend that pushing this legislation through is a genuine plea to uphold the mana motuhake of mana whenua. Now, I believe that of Ngāti Paoa, but I simply cannot accept that from the Crown. I cannot accept that after the damage it has done to both environmental and conservation protections and the damage that has happened to communities—lower-income communities and Māori communities—and then it is going to stand there and pretend that that is what it is pushing in this legislation. It absolutely is not. This legislation, for the Crown, is part of its patch-up job trying to fix the housing failure that it has been a massive part of. So we uncover that—the Greens uncover that. We know what we are voting for and against, and that is why we have very clear and valid reasons for not being able to support this bill—we believe in Ngāti Paoa and we support them—and for not being able to oppose this bill.

We understand that the community has valid disagreements and fears for how this is going to shape up. I will just finish that—I want to thank Ngāti Paoa for engaging with the Green Party and outlining their clear visions for this land, that they, in effect, want to double the green space that is available by utilising the currently lesser-used parts of the reserve and opening it up to be better for public use. I look forward to the building of the marae on their papakāinga—marae that are always available to everybody in our communities. I am excited by the visions that Ngāti Paoa have, and I am disappointed that the Crown has seen this as an opportunity to fix its failures. Thank you.

At the first reading of this bill, I expressed on behalf of New Zealand First some very grave concerns about the loss of this important reserve land. But we voted as a party to send the bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee, because we wanted to hear what the submissions would be from all of the affected people, especially the local people. Now we know the depth of opposition and why, so that reiterates New Zealand First’s original position, which is that our priority is, in fact, the preservation of this reserve land, and it still is—and the local people and the vast majority of submissions support that.

Having said that, New Zealand First members have always wanted to see more land available for the development of housing in Auckland. In fact, we have been saying so for at least 6 years. National actually created this housing crisis. It created it, fundamentally, through excessive immigration and through other inaction, and now it is in panic mode, trying to find enough residential land because of the difficulties that it created in the first place. That includes rushing to try to use up valuable reserve land like this. National itself seems to admit that now by saying that it is prepared to go out and get land, whether it is reserve land or otherwise. I do not quite understand what it was that Bill English said recently, because it was not very clear, but he did make it clear that they are not doing enough, and I cannot agree with that more.

The chronic need for more residential land does not justify the taking of this reserve land for residential development, because there are, in fact, other opportunities if the Government wants to go out and get them. Buy the land that is necessary, in appropriate places. This land was a gift to the people of New Zealand in 1945 for use as reserved open space for recreation and conservation purposes. Now, all of that is actually, in fact, being used for that purpose, irrespective of the fact that currently there are some cows being grazed on it—something that, strangely, the Minister for the Environment belabours and belabours and belabours.

There are already many recreational pursuits being carried out there. The playing fields are being used. The open spaces are used for social gatherings and kids just playing. There are many events: music, triathlons, and so on. Those opportunities must not be lost, and they must not be lost just for current needs but for future generations as well, because as more and more residential development happens, there will be more and more demand for this sort of land. This bill is actually going to remove, effectively, about a third of the land usable for those purposes, and all we get in return is a paltry 300 houses, only 20 percent of which are supposed to be affordable. We do not even know on what basis they will be declared to be affordable—not very affordable, I suspect, to a lot of people.

So the position we now are in is that we have a dismal failure of the Government’s housing strategy, and that is leading to bad planning, and it is leading to the use of inappropriate land for housing development, most especially this particular reserve. The Auckland Unitary Plan actually shows that this particular area is going to have at least 20,000, if not 30,000, more houses in the immediate area. Those people are going to need this reserve land in the future. They will need more parks, not less. I do want to compare this—because the Minister did—with the Riccarton Racecourse land. That division of land was supported by New Zealand First because the land, which was surplus there, was not reserve land used for recreation.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes, it was.

It was not, and the recreation land was preserved and so were the amenity values of the racecourse. That land was surplus, and, furthermore, in that particular legislation there were provisions to ensure that of the sections to be sold, a significant portion of them—at least 30 percent—were going to be affordable and there was a definition provided for that purpose and, also, a mechanism to ensure that this commitment would be met, and that is not the case with this land.

I also want to support the conservation values for this land. Despite what the Minister says, it is important as a breeding area for the northern New Zealand dotterel and pied stilts, and that is one other very good reason why this land should be reserved. The foreshore is an important roosting area, which will, in fact, be compromised by the residential development so close to it. But the preservation of the open space itself is the most important reason why this land should be preserved and the public amenity that depends on that.

Housing will affect the whole reserve, not just a part of it. The Minister went on and on about so much of this land being used for grazing, but that is actually only incidental. It is part of a management regime for the land and, also, is a way of funding the maintenance of the reserve. It is not a fundamental use of the land, and he knows that. He is actually misrepresenting that situation completely. If he does not know that, then he is dumber than I think he is, and, believe me, I think he is pretty dumb right now.

The Auckland Council submission also supports the New Zealand First position. It talks about the “highly valued public reserve”. It does talk about the precedent of using special legislation to get rid of reserve land. That is a serious issue, because it means that it will happen again in the future, especially if this Government stays in power.

Also, of course, it is being used for the Treaty settlement of Ngāti Paoa. Reserves are set aside to stop all of that happening—to stop all of that happening.

💬 Marama Fox: Treaty settlements?

It is no small—yes, that included. And it is no small matter that special legislation is being brought down to reverse both those issues: the preservation of reserve land, and to stop it being used for any other purpose, including residential development by Ngāti Paoa. And that is the truth of that matter. That is what reserves are for.

I also think it is a great shame that the Government is pitching the community against Māori in this way. The Government should be going out and finding the land that is necessary for housing and should not be resorting to reserve land in this way. The need for a settlement with Ngāti Paoa has got nothing to do with that. The local community and New Zealand First—we both support that settlement, but that does not mean that this land needs to be taken for residential development, rather than reserve land for all the proper purposes that reserve land should be for.

This situation, supported by the Māori Party, as it always seems to do on these things, blindly and stupidly—

💬 Marama Fox: Because we support iwi. Stupidly supporting iwi!

—without thinking the thing through, is just another National Government mess. All the caterwauling by Ms Fox will not change that. This will not make any difference to solving the housing crisis. It is a drop in a bucket. There are alternatives available. The Government should be going out there and buying private land, not using reserve land. Instead, it is content to destroy for ever valuable public open space and to compromise its conservation values. This is a very, very bad deal. It is very, very bad legislation. It will set a precedent, and New Zealand First will certainly continue to vote against it.

I am very happy to rise for two reasons: one, to support this bill, and, secondly, after that last speaker, I really just wanted to stand up and stretch my legs and stay awake. Really, with this bill, when you look at it, you have a Labour Party crying crocodile tears for housing in Auckland, and it opposes this bill; you have a Green Party that is sitting on the fence; and then you have New Zealand First, which voted in favour of the Riccarton Racecourse reserve bill, where we were looking to put affordable housing on reserve land in Christchurch, and is now voting against this bill. The Opposition does not make sense, whereas, on this side of the House, we are showing strong leadership—strong leadership for housing in Auckland.

I was on the Local Government and Environment Committee. I sat through the many submissions in Auckland, and I listened to the submitters. Overall, it is fair to say that most agreed on the intent of this bill: to supply more housing. Where it really cut up rough was around the concerns for the environment and around the loss of recreational land. From what I saw that day and from what I have read, I have got full faith in Ngāti Paoa to put in mitigation strategies to address the very real concerns for the birdlife, for the dotterel, and for potential loss of recreational grounds—to address that and put in mitigation strategies so both can go ahead. We can support the birdlife at Point England, we can support better recreational grounds for the local community, and we can provide more housing.

When we pause and reflect on what happened post the devastating earthquakes in Canterbury, we know that when you need to ramp up housing, the first step is to free up land. We saw that in parts of my electorate, in Waimakariri. If we free up land, it increases supply and it equals demand. That is what we need for Auckland. So I am very surprised that we have a Labour Party crying crocodile tears for housing in Auckland, that we have a Green Party that is sitting on the fence, and that we have a New Zealand First Party that forgot its stance last time.

Overall, this is a good bill that will support future housing in Auckland, and I commend it to the House.

The next call is a split call. Eugenie Sage—5 minutes.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to stand and explain the Green Party’s position on the Point England Development Enabling Bill. It is another Nick Smith shambles. This is because it is taking public reserve land for subdivision and housing development and then using Auckland’s housing crisis and a future Treaty settlement to justify it. Rather than taking all of the reserve and returning it to Ngāti Paoa, as we understand they originally requested, as cultural redress, the Minister is using this bill to actually override the normal legislative processes and require Ngāti Paoa to buy a portion of the reserve and require them to use it for housing. It is not a good Treaty settlement, but we are not opposing it, because we recognise and support Ngāti Paoa’s right to regain ownership of their ancestral land and their rights to development.

The reason we are not voting against the bill and are abstaining is that we understand that the Government has made it very clear that this is the only way Ngāti Paoa is going to get its ancestral land back. But we are not supporting the bill, because it has got many, many flaws. There is the whole issue of the way in which it overrides the usual process for removing reserve status and it overrides the Resource Management Act (RMA), and the fact that there is no guarantee that Ngāti Paoa will actually even get the land, because they have to buy it. If they do not choose to buy it and exercise that option, and if the Tāmaki Collective does not choose to buy it, then the bill allows a panel of private developers to use the land for development.

So there is no certainty—there is nothing in the bill—that actually ensures that Ngāti Paoa will get the land. That is why there is a Supplementary Order Paper that ensures that if the land is not taken by Ngāti Paoa or the Tāmaki Collective, it remains in Crown ownership to be used for Treaty settlement purposes and to be managed as a reserve. At the moment, this bill, if it goes through and Ngāti Paoa does not exercise its rights, is just a way that the Government is moving to allow private developers to take reserve land. That is the Government’s real agenda here.

This area at Point England is the largest area of open space on the Tāmaki foreshore. It has got sweeping views over the river and back to Maungarei—Mount Wellington. We are expecting an estimated 20,000 to 40,000 more people in the Tāmaki area over the next 15 to 20 years. People need open space—green space—for amenity values and as places to recreate, particularly where we are getting increased density of subdivision.

This bill overrides the normal legal processes in the Reserves Act. There are tests in the Reserves Act for changing reserve status. The regulatory impact statement made it very clear that this change in status would fail because there has been no evidence provided that the reserve is no longer required for its present purpose or any other reserve purpose. The Department of Conservation’s advice was that it was very unlikely that the test for revocation of reserve status would be satisfied.

We certainly did not hear any information at the select committee that the land was no longer required for a reserve. In fact, we heard an awful lot of evidence from submitters to the contrary, about how it is used for kilikiti, for sports, for passive recreation, like walking, and for kids’ triathlons. Under the normal processes, the public would have had an opportunity to comment on that revocation. Under this bill, they do not get that opportunity.

As well, the bill overrides the normal processes under the RMA. There should be a plan change process, which would enable the public and the council to assess the costs and benefits of rezoning what is now open space as high-density, mixed-use residential. It would look at those whole processes of democratic decisions around planning. Yet, we have seen Auckland lawyers pointing out recently in an article that this bill highlights a disturbing trend towards ad hoc decision-making at the expense of access to environmental justice and quality outcomes. So that is another reason that we cannot support the bill.

We hope that Ngāti Paoa will get some advice from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment on the geotechnical issues, because this area of land is very boggy, very wet, it is potentially at risk of natural hazards, and is not suited to housing. We will not be supporting the bill or opposing it.

I call Marama Fox—5 minutes.

Well, I would like to acknowledge those of Ngāti Paoa who are seated in the gallery in this evening, specifically Hauāuru Rāwiri, kaihautū of Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust. While we have heard a lot about what the Government is supposedly doing, and we have heard a lot about what the Opposition members think about this bill—their stance and their summations—let us see what Ngāti Paoa have said about this bill. I am going to quote from Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust chief executive officer Hauāuru Rāwiri, and he said that “… without this land there would be no Treaty settlement between the Crown and Ngāti Paoa.”

So there is a lot of talk from people who think they know, but this comes from the words of the people themselves: “ ‘By opposing the legislation, Labour is opposing a Treaty Settlement Bill—for the first time in the history of the Treaty settlement process. The Labour Party position seems to be that Ngāti Paoa is being duped by the Government to advance its housing programme. This [surely] is a supremely patronising and condescending attitude that reflects poorly on its proponents.’ The Government is proposing to sell 13 hectares of the 48-hectare reserve to Ngāti Paoa, and there is a bill before Parliament that would lift its reserve status and allow housing to be built on the land.” These are their words, not my words, not the Opposition’s words, and not the words of the Green Party members, who seem to be sitting on the fence, while I heard a lot of reasons why the Green Party would support it, get up and support it. This is not about housing specifically; this is Treaty redress. How patronising of this Government and this Opposition to think that they can tell the Treaty partner what to do with their land, 70,000 acres taken—

💬 Peeni Henare: Give the land back. No strings attached!

—70,000—taken for £100. “Give the land back.” is the cry that comes from over here. This is the only land available to be used as redress for Ngāti Paoa. They know it. They have said it. They have accepted it, and they have signed the letter that this land will come back to them in redress. It is the same as every other Treaty settlement, and we do not hear the decrying calls of the Opposition members when they have to buy back their land. But we have said it; we have said it over and over again: this is the greatest koha to this nation that our people make again and again and again in Treaty settlements. How dare they use the land to do what they think is right to do with it when it was theirs in the first place! How dare they! How patronising—how patronising.

Here is one thing I do know: Ngāti Paoa have not been the ones to play political football with their Treaty settlement. They have stayed out of the politics of this debate. This debate has been politicised by this House—by this House. This House has politicised their Treaty settlement.

For the people who are going to have their million-dollar views disturbed, one of whom rang my office, a lovely male migrant who had come here from Ireland—and I said to him: “Surely you understand what this means to have your treaty grievance and your redress of a land coming back to you.”

Yes, unfortunately, we have had to purchase our land back—and that makes no sense—but yet we do it in Treaty settlements, yet we do it again and again, because we are past being people of protest, and we want to be people of progress. Ngāti Paoa has shown us the way that they would like to progress their settlement, their redress, to build affordable homes for their people and the people of Glen Innes. I tell you, I have been to just about every single housing development in that city and barely any of them are building affordable homes, except for who? Iwi. How dare they build affordable homes for their people! How patronising of this House to dare to stand up and tell them what they should do with their Treaty settlement.

Ngāti Paoa has been offered 2 hectares of that reserve land for their marae, a place to stand, a tūrangawaewae, finally after a hundred and whatever years of coming to this point. Why are we rushing this through? With their agreement, with their respect, and with their wishes. I support this bill.

Following on from that very strong speech by Marama Fox, I just want to say to this House that I have sat here tonight and it has absolutely disgusted me, the behaviour of the Opposition—Labour—in not supporting this bill. It is about the Treaty rights of Ngāti Paoa. I am absolutely ashamed to be part of this House when you have got a party that abstains—that abstains from actually making a decision—because they came here representing a voice to the people whom they represent and yet they abstain on this very important bill. I just want this House to take note of everything that has gone on with this Opposition. It is disgusting that Labour, which purports to have all of the Māori issues in hand, really does not have them in hand, and we know that the Māori Party does.

When I sat here today and I listened to what New Zealand First said about this Government taking away reserves, it is a load of rubbish. I sat there and I thought: “Where is this guy coming from? I mean, he supported the Riccarton housing bill and yet cannot bring himself to support this.” Honestly, some people need to go back into their offices, look at themselves in the mirror, and think: “Are we really worthy of being here?”. Because, from what I have heard tonight, they are not worthy of being here.

So, without any further ado, I support the work that Hon Nick Smith is doing around housing in Auckland. Auckland needs these houses. Ngāti Paoa have a right to their own economic development with the 300 social houses that they have put together and planned for. They have a right. Do not take that right away. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. It is my pleasure to take a call on this Point England Development Enabling Bill. I do so as a proud member of our Labour caucus but also as a Māori based in South Auckland and as somebody who is 100 percent committed to and passionate about resolving our historical Treaty settlements.

This is an incredibly emotional piece of legislation. I think we all just have to take stock of what we are trying to do, which is many things, actually. So, firstly, I would like to acknowledge Hauāuru Rāwiri, who is in the House on behalf of the Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust. I acknowledge that from their perspective they have completed their negotiations with the Crown and they are in the process of their deed of settlement being prepared. So, for them, this journey has taken a long, long time. Actually, we can go back to 2007 when we released the Tāmaki Makaurau Settlement Process Report, which in fact was the tribunal report that has brought us to where we are today. So this is a time to actually contemplate why we have managed to arrive at a point in our history where we are bickering like children in this House of Representatives, which is actually supposed to take the people with us.

If this is a Treaty settlement bill, then why have we not ensured that the people of Point England and the people of Maungakiekie and Tāmaki have been taken with us on this journey? We have failed in that process. We all need to look at what has happened here tonight and think about how it has happened. I think that from Ngāti Paoa’s position they have, in good faith, been negotiating with the Crown since 2007. In fact, in 2013 when their marae was agreed to, it was agreed by the Crown, which notified the council. It was supported by the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board, and we had some cultural redress that ensured Ngāti Paoa had some whenua, on the land of their tupuna, Paoa, that they were going to create—not only for themselves but for the community of Maungakiekie and Tāmaki.

Somehow we went from there to where we are today: discussing 11.69 hectares of a reserve piece of land that, as my colleague Denis O’Rourke said, was gifted to the people of Auckland in 1945, from whom? From the Crown. Who did the Crown take it from? Actually, it took it from the iwi of Tāmaki Makaurau, including Ngāti Paoa.

I have tried, in my deliberations as a member of this Parliament, to talk to the people who have been vested with the responsibility of engaging with our communities. I have talked to people like Josephine Bartley, who is the current chair of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board. I have talked to Phil Goff, who is the current Mayor of Auckland. Auckland Council actually supports this legislation, but it said two things: the people of Point England need to be compensated, because 25 percent of the current recreation land that that community enjoys is being lost. Actually, I think the Government is negotiating with the council to reimburse or compensate the community.

The other thing that the council said was that if this is truly a Treaty settlement, then the only people who should get this land are Ngāti Paoa. Whether we like it or not, there is an opportunity, through legislation, for the Government to actually give this land to a developer. I am trying to close that gap through my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 320. Within the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act of 2014 there is an opportunity for a developer—if Ngāti Paoa does not take up the option, if the other 12 mana whenua who are signatories to that particular settlement agreement for whatever reason do not take up that option, the Crown, because it is using this land for housing, can actually sell it on the open market. That is a realism of this.

So this is not a traditional, normal Treaty settlement like we say it is. This is actually extraordinary, and it is out of the box, which is why, I think you have seen, from our side of the House, we do not support it. We have got a proud history of supporting Treaty settlements. Straight-up Treaty settlements—100 percent we support them. This is not a straight-up Treaty settlement. But from our perspective we have to maintain the mana and the integrity of our Treaty partners, our mana whenua, who have acted in good faith, who have negotiated with the Crown, and they have come to an agreement about this particular piece of land.

The SOP is seeking to close the loop and say that if this land is going to be vested back into the Crown—because currently it is vested in Auckland Council—and if this land is going to be used as right of first refusal land, and if this land is going to go back to Ngāti Paoa, then we want to limit section 136 of the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act, which, essentially, means that because it is being used for housing purposes, the Government and the Minister for Building and Construction can sell it to somebody else. So if we can close that loop and be really clear about what this bill is—that it is part of the deed of settlement, that it is Treaty legislation, and that the only beneficiary of this piece of legislation going through the House tonight is Ngāti Paoa—then I think maybe, maybe, we can start to actually realise the full intent of this Treaty settlement process, which is about our truth and reconciliation process.

For our mana whenua and our community groups to get caught in the middle of the bickering that we are having in this House—actually, we have to take responsibility for the fact that the community was not consulted. So who should take responsibility for that? Is that Ngāti Paoa’s responsibility—to have gone to the community to talk to them about this piece of land and where it fits in their Treaty settlement? Was it Auckland Council’s responsibility? Was it the Government’s? Whose was it? This is the process where we have now told some of our community groups and, particularly, our local board leaders that this is part of Ngāti Paoa’s settlement.

So I think that there is an opportunity for us to move forward, but we can only do it in good faith and we can only do it through trust. The reality of my Supplementary Order Paper is that this shows that the community does not trust the Government. This SOP is an insurance policy for the community, because it is afraid that this National Government is not going to honour its Treaty settlement. It is going to give it—[Interruption] No, I am serious. You are going to allow somebody else to develop that land—Fletcher’s, whoever it may be—but you are not going to actually give this land back to Ngāti Paoa.

💬 Hon Member: That’s outrageous.

It is not outrageous. It is absolutely not outrageous. If you think it is outrageous, then you are deluding yourself. You are also deluding yourself about the responsibility that the Government had in making sure that you took the people with us. You have actually undermined the Treaty settlement process through what you have done. Every other Treaty settlement that goes through this House usually has universal support. We would never get up and actually contradict a deed of settlement, because that deed of settlement has taken so long to get to. The deed of settlement that is being prepared—and that is the other thing we must all remember. Once it is signed by the Crown, it is signed off by Cabinet and by Ngāti Paoa, and then it is legally binding.

I think that there is a way forward. At the moment we cannot support this legislation. We would love to support this legislation, but we cannot support it, because this is not a traditional, classic Treaty settlement bill. You can say it is, but it has not gone through the Māori Affairs Committee, which is the traditional process. Actually, you know, I think the Māori members of the National caucus would say this is not a traditional Treaty settlement piece of legislation.

I think that there is an opportunity for us to work together to resolve this issue, to clarify it. I am hoping that there will be support for my SOP. It is on the Table. I am not sure when we will have the Committee stage and the third reading debate, but I look forward to us having a robust discussion and everybody being really clear that unless this is categorically and can only ever go to either Ngāti Paoa or other iwi of Tāmaki Makaurau, then we will not support it, because it is not a Treaty bill. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. E mihi atu ki a koe e te rakatira o Ngāti Paoa, ā, huri noa i Te Whare nei e mihi atu.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I acknowledge you, the esteemed one of Ngāti Paoa, and you collectively throughout this House, I greet you.]

I just want to say, first of all, that I still have a lot of respect for the last speaker, Louisa Wall. But some of the thoughts that she put to the House tonight, I think really do put into jeopardy the situation on this side of the House when it comes to Treaty settlements. This is the party—the National Party is the party of Treaty settlements. When we look at the past record of that side of the House compared with this side, there is no comparison at all. So to actually bring this in as a political football—when we hear the other side of the House, and not just the Labour Party members but also the Green Party and New Zealand First members, actually using this as a political football, it is a very, very dire day in this House.

What I want to do is just to say to this House that this bill is a little different—absolutely—but this is an opportunity, through this bill, to release land so that there are opportunities for an iwi, actually, to be able to build on this land. It is a piece of land that was used only for the grazing of cows and some other sorts of activities. The best use of this land has been recognised by this party, and the other side of the House has now used it as a political football, where they are saying: “Oh no, because of this the whole Treaty settlement process is in disarray.”

What I want to do is say to that side of the House that you need land. You have just promised 100,000 houses, and yet everything we have put up to you is all about the release of land—you do not want to go there. Look at what we are doing. Look at what has just come. We will build 34,000 new houses in Auckland, and the reason for that—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I do not like that word being used. I will not have that at all.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I can see that I have really hit a nerve, because the truth hurts. At the end of the day, I want to congratulate Minister Nick Smith and Ngāti Paoa on working together to achieve this excellent outcome for iwi and Aucklanders.

💬 Phil Twyford: I think someone left a window open. Let’s build some houses on parks in your area.

It is a shame that we get the disrespect from that side of the House, particularly because this is a great bill. Kia ora tātou katoa.