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

Now, could we please have those leaving the House do it quietly, as we’ve got further business to carry on with. In the Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill, we were up to call No. 2, the National Party.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think I might be able to help with clearing other members out of the Chamber. I do want to start by acknowledging the member at the centre of this member’s bill, Hūhana Lyndon. I do want to acknowledge that we’ve had a constructive engagement on that. I was very pleased to have a one-on-one discussion, except with other colleagues present in that, so to speak. Also, at my invitation, she was gracious enough to engage with the panel that was conducting a review into the Public Works Act. I trust that was a productive exercise. Seeing as I have the opportunity, I do want to put on record my thanks to that body for other work that they are doing—well, some related work actually, as I’ll cover soon, in relation to reforming and reviewing the Public Works Act.

I should clarify as well that, being a member’s bill matter, I’m speaking as the National Party spokesperson as opposed to on behalf of the whole Government. Our colleagues and friends of the other Government parties will no doubt make their own position clear soon enough. In the course of my remarks, I will actually refer to some of the changes that we are making as a Government as a whole to improve the situation for Māori freehold land and Māori protected land, to correct some inconsistencies or, frankly, some unfairness that have been a feature of the Public Works Act regime for many years, in terms of providing better compensation, better valuation, and so forth for the holders of Māori land. I’ll get on to that shortly.

I do just want to state reasonably early in my contribution that, while we’ve considered the proposal of the member in good faith and understand certainly where she is coming from with the historical context of the Public Works Act having shamefully been used as a vehicle for confiscation historically, nevertheless the practice in the 21st century is that it is used as a last resort in relation to Māori land. Therefore, being the case that it is only used as a matter of necessity, we don’t support this bill because that would be to deprive whole communities, including Māori communities, of the benefit of the public works infrastructure that of course, ultimately, is the reason that we have this legislation in the first instance.

In saying that, of course the overall context is that we have a Public Works Act. And I emphasise “public” because it’s necessary to balance that against the private property rights, be it individually or collectively held. In seeking to achieve that balance, we acknowledge that land should not be taken from a person, be it a legal person or a natural person—entity—other than when it is strictly necessary for the achievement of aims that are good for the community as a whole. Flood protection works might be one example; schools, hospitals, transport infrastructure, and other ways in which we seek to live our lives as a community in a way that represents the best interests of the community. Of course, as I say, we do have to balance out against the private property rights be they individually or collectively held. For that reason, we have such a regime in the first place.

For those who are not familiar with the Public Works Act framework, the starting position is that agreement is sought with the landowner. If a willing buyer/willing seller relationship exists, albeit perhaps with some reluctance and a sense of resignation or inevitability—it might be that a landowner agrees with the Crown or the local government agency to part company with their land for appropriate compensation, obviously—following that period of negotiation, the transaction would take place. In the event that such agreement is not forthcoming, then there is the compulsory acquisition procedure. It’s got a number of different stages and steps, and that’s for the protection, of course, of the landowner and their private property rights.

I should note—because these relate to the points made broadly by the member in her bill, but also they of course have general application—that if there is a dispute about the compensation amount, then the land valuation tribunal is available. An unreasonable decision maker can expect to face a judicial review application and recourse to the Environment Court, ordinarily—and I’ll qualify that again soon.

In the case of Māori-specific land, Māori freehold land, or protected Māori land, as that term is defined in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, we are sensitive to the fact, again, of the historical context of the confiscation of Māori land since 1840, and in fact before that time. For that reason, we have acknowledged that, and also the particular characteristics often of Māori land that make it inappropriate to treat in exactly the same way as general land, as we might call it. That’s why the Government reforms have amended the basis on which Māori land is valued, so that it is brought up to the status of general land. In my view, that should have been the case, but that’s a wrong that we’re managing to right now in 2025. We’re also moving to ensure that compensation can be given for multiple dwellings on the same parcel of land. That, again, has not been the case until now, and that’s disproportionately disadvantaged Māori land owners, among whom it is more traditional to have multiple dwellings on that single parcel of land.

In relation to reforms announced as recently as a week ago in relation to critical infrastructure—that is, projects to be consented under the Fast-track Approvals Act consent process or roads of national significance—we are saying that the right of recourse to the Environment Court will remain for protected Māori land, noting its special significance and status in this country, but without removal of that right of incentive; the incentive being that if the landowner, where it’s protected Māori land, will still have the ability to claim an extra 15 percent of the value of the land, notwithstanding that the usual time frames might not have been met. That’s to acknowledge the fact that sometimes there are more complex ownership structures or governance structures that apply to Māori land, be it of a trust-type nature or perhaps a post Treaty-settlement entity, and so forth. But we are deliberately acknowledging the fact that Māori land is often more complex in its character and wishing to ensure that those who hold the land in those more complex arrangements are not disadvantaged.

For that reason, we consider then that the bill—and not wishing for flood protection works or other critical infrastructure to be unable to be completed for the good of the whole community, including the Māori residents within that, we therefore can’t find a way to support this bill. We considered its terms nevertheless, and I do want to draw the attention of the House to new section 4AB(1)(c), and that’s defining the Māori land protected. This would be within clause 4 of the bill. It says that “Sections 4A and 16 do not apply to protected Māori land other than with the consent of—”, and then paragraph (c) says, “any other persons with an interest in the land.”, and that’s an extremely broad characterisation.

If I understand it correctly, and I think that I do, the interest in the land need not even be ownership; it could be some sort of lease arrangement. It could be an easement, which could be a right of access, or some other way of using the land, even on a temporary basis. It needn’t be a registered interest. In other words, it wouldn’t necessarily be on a certificate of title; it could just be some arrangement that’s made in respect of the land and therefore quite difficult to prove. If this legislation were to pass, it would be nigh on impossible to determine whether someone who has claimed that they have the ability to give such consent would actually do so. While the more general objection to the passage of the bill is based on the fact that, ultimately, we do need that last-resort necessity basis, nevertheless, I think also it’s fair to point out that the kaitiaki of the land, as in paragraph (b) of new section 4AB, has a particular meaning, and that’s set out in section 4 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. The more broad definition, or lack of definition, of “other persons with an interest in the land” would be problematic as well.

For all these reasons—and noting the Land Information New Zealand published policy and practice not to acquire Māori land except as a last resort and that there have been no such takings in the last decade—we do not ultimately support the bill, albeit we recognise the intent and commend the member for her engagement and having brought it forward.

Tuatahi e mihi ana ki a koe, e te tuahine mō tō kaha ki te kōkiri i tēnei kaupapa. Rawe, rawe tō mahi. E mihi ana ki a koe i tēnei wā.

[Firstly, I acknowledge you, my female colleague, for your strength in driving this issue. Your dedication is outstanding. I thank you at this time.]

We stand to support the kaupapa tonight. This kaupapa, in my view—and, I’m sure, in others’ view—is one of the saddest kaupapa in our history. When I think about this, I think about all of our activists—if you want to call them activists—or our people who’ve fought for our land, and you’re going to have to go back to 1974 with the Māori land march, which Whina Cooper led. Our people went on the land march because of this type of kaupapa. This was the kaupapa that drove them.

That’s why I say to our tuahine Hūhana Lyndon over there: this is always worth putting up—it’s always worth putting up, if only as a reminder to the House and people listening; a reminder to them of the type of injustices that our people have endured for decades and decades and decades. Tonight, I’m proud to say that our party will tautoko this bill.

When I was listening to the previous speaker, the Hon Chris Penk—it’s one of the problems, sometimes, with being in Government. I hear what he was saying, and I can hear some empathy for the kaupapa, which is good, but sometimes I think we have to find our way around every technical problem that’s going. Let’s be honest, when Labour’s been in Government, we’ve gone down the same process, and yet we’ve had people who have fought for their whenua before. You only have to go back and look at how this kaupapa has been used against us.

We’ve heard the Taranaki land claims. We recall the wonderful work of our tohunga like Te Whiti and Tohu. They did really nothing wrong in Taranaki, apart from lift the survey pegs, I think it was, and, hello, they lost all their whenua. It was a disgraceful act from the Crown. Those examples have been replicated right through our history—right through our history—and our people have never known what to do, and land just confiscated; taken away. I mean, we’ve got crazy examples of whenua that was taken for bowling clubs, for goodness’ sake, and all of a sudden, the bowling club doesn’t use it for what it was meant to be. Did they return the whenua back to our people? No.

It’s just such a tragedy that we see, and it feels fruitless and that’s why, even if this does not pass, we put on record our horror and our tautoko for our people who marched in 1974. When I think about this, though, I think about my Aunty Hana Jackson, I think about my Uncle Sid Jackson, I think about my Uncle Moana Jackson, and I think about Tāme Iti and Ken Mair—all the activists from all the way—Whina Cooper, Hone Harawira. They all marched and everybody thought it was fruitless, but it wasn’t fruitless. Sometimes you have to fight.

Tonight, I want to mihi to a special kuia, which is Patricia Grace, who made a stand against the Public Works Act—you know all about this, Doc, if you’re up there—this special kuia who stood up for her whenua in Waikanae, who said, “No, no. No, you’re not going to take my land.” I don’t know how old our kuia is now—she must be about 86, 87, or whatever she is—

Rawiri Waititi: Don’t guess!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —but she’s one of the most special kuia of this country—of this country. She might be a Labour Party member, I think, Rawiri. She’s wonderful—wonderful. She said, “No, I’m making a stand here.” She stood up and she won. She won, in terms of the court, and they weren’t able to take her whenua. We mihi to her because she was part of a push to try and change things and change the law. She’s been part of the Green kaupapa; part of the Māori kaupapa.

What I’m saying tonight is we should never give up because of all the technicalities. When you have a people who are reduced to just 5 percent of the land, then surely it’s incumbent on all of us—all sides—to say, “Can we do better? Can we change this law? Can we look at this differently?” Tonight, I mihi to our kuia Patricia Grace for her fight, and to all our people who have put their hands up and fought against this Public Works Act acquisition of whenua Māori for decades and decades. Tēnei te mihi ki a tātou katoa. [I thank us all.] Kia ora.

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to talk to this Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill. I congratulate the member Hūhana Lyndon for having a member’s bill drawn. I think it’s a real privilege to be part of any journey in this House, certainly a legislative change one.

I don’t want to look in the rear-view mirror of New Zealand’s history. I think we all agree. I know Willie Jackson’s going to spin up with this—

Hon Willie Jackson: I know. Let’s not go backward.

MARK CAMERON: —but let’s have a conversation about moving forward, sir. I say that to Willie Jackson.

Interestingly enough—and I mean this with the greatest respect to all the members here—Hūhana Lyndon, when she referenced in her primary speech, she referenced to a lot of places that I know intimately well in Northland. There are 250,000-odd people that live in Northland; it’s about 235,000. We all share in the infrastructure, all of us. Every day we come to this House and we’re complaining that there’s not enough money, there’s not enough economic activity, the jobs are sparse and few and far between. Well, I’ll just tease out the logical counterfactual to that if I can.

How does it work that some of our most remote regions in New Zealand coincidentally have some of our poorest people? We need infrastructure to join the metaphorical hands in that instance. Now, some might laugh, but I know people in the Far North that literally live on a metal road. They’re lucky if they see the postie, they’re lucky if they have a cop, they’re lucky if the infrastructure in the school works, all of which is shared by all of us.

Now, I cannot for the life of me reconcile what happened as being good—what happened in Māori history was terrible—but if we live in this grievance-a-side reality, we always look backwards. We are never going to succeed on the world stage as a joint nation. We are a group of Kiwis—

Rawiri Waititi: Ha, ha!

MARK CAMERON: —who come to this House—Rawiri Waititi laughs. Well, I’m bloody proud of being a New Zealander. I’m not sure if he is, but I certainly am. Let’s join together and take a journey forward.

We knew that we were going to get the heckling, but in their version, they’ve spent all the money on a small group of people. I’d rather spend it on all of us. How do we reconcile that we don’t have the schools, we don’t have the infrastructure? So often Te Pāti Māori are saying, “We haven’t invested it.”, but how can we do that if we start splitting hairs about who gets what and how?

Now, I’ll give you an example, if I may, from an infrastructure point of view. Periodically, private land has to be acquired through the Public Works Act. I know, incidentally, when you have to put a viaduct through a mountain, that’s significantly cheaper than having to go around it or put a tunnel under it. Now, how does that work when a group of New Zealanders—that share in that infrastructure, by the way. Infrastructure is not a racial thing; it’s shared by all of us. We all reap the benefits of infrastructure, but we’ve got to spend significantly more because certain interest groups took umbrage with that. I think that is a factual nonsense.

If we’re going to move forward as a country, we have to stop looking through a myopic lens, Willie Jackson, in our past, move forward—we have a settlement process—look after the people that were aggrieved and actually start building stuff.

Tākuta Ferris: We’ll steal your land tomorrow and tell you not to feel bad.

MARK CAMERON: Otherwise—

Rawiri Waititi: Steal the new farm you just bought.

MARK CAMERON: Tākuta Ferris and others are going to be in this House, if they remain in it, continually complaining that they don’t have enough stuff.

Well, we’ve got a solution. We could actually join hands together and start building kit in New Zealand and stop beating each other up about what happened in our ancestral history 180 years ago. There’s one journey and it’s one journey forward, and I think we should actually celebrate being a New Zealander rather than attacking each other for something as superficial as someone’s race in the investment in infrastructure.

Rawiri Waititi: Nobody mentioned race.

Tākuta Ferris: Nothing to do with race.

MARK CAMERON: Excuse me?

Tākuta Ferris: “Nothing to do with race.” was the comment.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member had resumed his seat. I call Andy Foster.

Mark Cameron: You’re calling me racist?

Do you want to start again?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I’ve called you.

ANDY FOSTER: Yeah, OK, thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First. Look, we understand the reasons for the bill and we understand the history, but now is 2025, and the advice we’ve already had in this House, just this evening, is that the last time protected Māori land was taken under the Public Works Act was in 2012. I’ve just asked the Minister how often non-protected Māori land been taken, and he said it was dozens of times in his time as Minister. No Māori land has been taken since 2012, but dozens of pieces of land have been taken which are not Māori land, OK? So let’s just talk about some facts here.

I would also say that Māori have a very strong attachment to land. We understand that, but that is not unique to Māori. The word “tūrangawaewae” is an important word for many, many people.

Tākuta Ferris: It’s not your word. Don’t use it.

ANDY FOSTER: Oh, OK, so “Don’t use our language.”, then. If you really want to, “Don’t use our language.”—that’s very unhelpful.

The Public Works Act exists to do things which are for public benefit. There is quite a significant hurdle to get through to do that. It exists for good reason to allow public works, and it should be used and is used relatively sparingly. They’re the kind of works that if you don’t build them—if you want to build a road, a pipeline, a stopbank, sometimes it has to go in that location. There is no other alternative. The process under the Public Works Act says you’ve actually got to look at alternatives, and if there is no other alternative, you select the best option. Then you’ve got to go through the process under the Public Works Act of saying: can you buy it in a way which you negotiate with a willing seller? Ultimately, sometimes, you have to get to the stage where you actually have to go through a compulsory process. That is the last resort. With protected Māori land, the clear evidence we have is it is the last, last resort—something to be avoided if at all possible.

I wanted to give you an example of a Public Works Act—and I don’t think this is Māori land at all; in this particular instance, it’s non-Māori land. It’s the Mt Messenger Bypass. That was a project which started at something like $80 million to $90 million. It involves a bypass of a very tricky bit of road. It’s to build a tunnel through a piece of land, to give you a good piece of roading through there. There is one piece of land at one end of the tunnel—you’ve got two valleys there, one a piece of land at one end of the tunnel, which the person held out against the Public Works Act.

There was an option to buy it. In fact, the Minister for Land Information at the time was Eugenie Sage, who declined to do so. The result of having not done that under the Public Works Act is going to be a project which was going to start at $80 million to $90 million but is probably going to be several hundred million. The New Zealand Transport Agency have done an incredible job trying to build gantries and cable cars and things like that, to be able to allow the work to happen. It is inordinately expensive, and that is money that is then not available to build other roading and transport infrastructure for New Zealanders up and down the country. That is the cost of a holdout against the Public Works Act. I’ve got to say that what Ministers Penk and Bishop have done in the last week is to say, “Look, let’s incentivise doing deals early to reduce the cost, to reduce the uncertainty, so that there can be more of a willing buyer, willing seller, but you give more money to the seller of land upfront.”

In terms of Māori land, it is very regrettable whenever it needs to be taken but does have to be taken. It’s probably worth actually also noting what the Environment Court has to do if there’s an appeal to the Environment Court—and they’ve left appealing to the Environment Court for Māori land; not for non-Māori land but just for Māori land. The Environment Court must find that it is fair, sound, and reasonably necessary. In other words, you only take land when it is necessary for public good, for public works. To take that off the table—and it hasn’t happened at all since 2012—but to take it off the table entirely will just make building infrastructure even harder in this country. It’s hard enough already, and it is one of the things that is slowing down this country. It’s slowing it down for every New Zealander. It is making us all poorer. If these parties over there want to keep us being a poor country, or make us a poorer country, they’re going the right way about it. We need to get this country moving, and part of doing it is to say no to this bill. I do not commend this bill to the House.

I don’t even know why this law still exists, to be quite honest; and why this is even a bill. This is not the only bill that we should be concerned with; we’ve got new bills being rushed through this House and eventually new bills will be rushed through this House in the future. We just have to look at fast track. We just have to look at the regulatory standards bill. They’re very similar to what the purpose of the Native Lands Act was back in 1865—became the Native Land Court, eventually became the Māori Land Court in 1947—where they turned communal land into individual title, then alienated it, and then used the Public Works Act to steal more Māori land.

Why? For roads. They still have paper roads out there that belong to the Government and the Crown, still today, that they don’t use. They don’t use the land any more, but it still belongs to the Crown. That was taken under the Public Works Act. It’s still there. Now we’ve got people in this House talking about “Māori land”, “non-Māori land”—it was all Māori land, confiscated—confiscated—under the New Zealand Settlements Act in 1863. Then they’re talking about the settlements process where Māori only get 1 percent of its total due. They’re going to say, “Look, you’ve got a settlement process. It’s OK, shut up now. You’ve got a settlements process. You’re going to get 1 percent of your total due, and we’re going to keep the 99 percent.”

Then we’re going to wonder why Māori still only have the resources that they’re getting. The Government continues to make its money and its profit off stolen Māori resources and assets taken through legislation like the Public Works Act, and then they wonder why Māori don’t want to lose the 4 percent that they still have. Thank you, Hūhana. Ngā mihi nui ki a koe for bringing this particular issue back into this House for us to debate. If any sane person looked at the history of Māori land theft—that’s what this bill is; it is theft of Māori land. Four percent—let that sink in. That’s all we have left, and you still have legislation like the Public Works Act—still own Crown-owned land through the Public Works Act that has not even been used; paper roads, for Christ’s sake. We’ve got them through my iwi. You alienated our lands by turning communal land into individual title. You alienated it.

Andy Foster: Look forward, not backwards.

RAWIRI WAITITI: And not only for the Public Works Act; you alienated it through survey costs. Now, people couldn’t pay it, so you took it. This is the reality of what we are facing here, today, in regards to this bill.

Andy Foster: Nothing since 2012.

RAWIRI WAITITI: You displaced us. You confiscated the land—not you, Madam Speaker. The Crown confiscated the land. The Crown continues to steal the land through its legislation that they’re still moving today. This is not 2012; it’s 2025. Fast track will allow the same thing. The Regulatory Standards Bill allows the same thing. To remove Te Tiriti o Waitangi from any legislation allows this Government to open this country up to a free market. That’s what it wants. It wants a free market. It wants international investors and corporate organisations to come in here and rape what’s left of this country.

Mark Cameron: Oh, rubbish.

RAWIRI WAITITI: Absolutely. And we’ve got a guy back here who owns two farms. How the hell did you get two farms in the first place? It’s because of bills like this. That’s how you ended up with it. That’s how the Crown has made most of its money: off confiscated land—millions and millions of hectares of land. Absolutely. Then you’re wondering why Māori are impoverished in their own little 4 percent that they still own. Ngā mihi nui ki a koe, Hūhana.

What we’ve got here is absolutely a travesty, and you’re a disgrace to the country for not supporting this type of bill and fixing—we don’t want you to apologise, we want you to fix—what your ancestors did to us. We support this bill 100 percent. Kia ora tātou.

Tēnā rā tātou katoa. I stand in support of this bill. I think this bill deserves to go to a select committee. I think this House has demonstrated very clearly that there is a fairly low understanding of what’s actually going on with Māori land. The information I’ve heard tonight is rather astounding. We’ve got some member telling us, “Don’t look back; look forward.” I am looking forward. I look forward to the day that we no longer lose land. I look forward to that day. I look forward to the day when this House upholds the promise that it made only last week. It made a promise to Te Korowai o Wainuiārua that the breaches to Te Tiriti would no longer happen. We passed an apology to those iwi. We passed legislation that acknowledged the breaches of Te Tiriti, and here we are trying to protect land.

Now, we heard from Andy Foster—good on Andy—that there hasn’t been any Māori land taken since 2012. My question around that is, then, what is the problem? It hasn’t been used in 13 years, so why not make that permanent? Then he said what the legislation says and what we are, effectively, saying to Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, “Look, we promised you we wouldn’t do it, but under this legislation, if it’s really necessary, we’re going to do it.” That isn’t good enough. We need to actually just stop doing it.

In this piece of legislation—I’ll go to the clauses. That is actually an opening for a Government to actually sit down with owners and get them to a point where they’re satisfied that they might want to do a land swap. You’ve got to have other mechanisms. I find it really astounding also that some members are talking about the monetary value of land, and then someone else thinks they know what tūrangawaewae is. When I say, “Ko au te awa, ko te awa ko au. Ko te whenua ko au, ko au te whenua.” [“I am the river and the river is me. I am the land and the land is me.”], they’re not just words, and it doesn’t have a monetary value when I say that. It’s not about the money.

I would say to the members about infrastructure: ask yourself who in this country has contributed the most land to infrastructure in Aotearoa? Who has done that, and quite often done it because the land has been taken? Every single national park in this country was once Māori land. Almost every native school that was built in the 20th century was built on Māori land. They had no choice about it. I can’t help but look back, because I look back and I hope for a better future, and I believe that with this bill, if Government parties took it seriously and actually let it go to select committee, you might get a whole range of views and get to a solution that could actually work. That’s why I’m supporting this bill.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. First of all, I’d like to talk to Hūhana Lyndon and congratulate her on getting her member’s bill drawn from the biscuit tin, which I think is a big lift up for any MP that achieves that here, but also, as has been mentioned by a number of members, for bringing this kaupapa, this subject, to the House to be talked about, because it’s an incredibly important subject, but it’s also a very emotional subject. There are many people who are in this House tonight who have a history with our ancestors, and a very bad history with regards to that. That shouldn’t be forgotten, and I think it’s something that we as today’s politicians have the ability to effect a different outcome into the future. I think that’s something that we should look at.

I note the previous member talking there, the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe. We’ve had conversations about Māori land and there’s a tyranny of history that our country should not be proud of. Today, over the last couple of decades, the Crown has endeavoured to put some of that to right. I do agree with what’s been mentioned by other speakers about the recompense of the wrongdoings only scratching the surface—everybody knows that—and it doesn’t truly recognise what happened in the past, but it’s an opportunity for us as a country to understand, to educate ourselves about what happened, and to endeavour to put some form of mechanism for everybody to move forward and to give Māori potentially an opportunity, with some of the recompense that happens through settlements, to be able to do that.

The Public Works Act, the subject of this particular member’s bill, is, I think, possibly one of the strongest powers actually given to Government: being able to take land. This is not just private land, but it’s also Māori land. And that power is something that we should be careful with, with regards to what it is. As I mentioned, it’s an incredibly important subject to talk to, and there haven’t been any substantive amendments to this particular Act, which was enacted in 1981, a long time ago, and it’s been sitting there with a lot of flaws in it. We can all give examples of some of the wrongdoings and, if you look particularly at Māori Land, we can talk about the unfair nature of compensation, like the member Adrian Rurawhe—whether that’s in a monetary sense. I think there is some sense in the fact of looking at other means of recompensating with regards to whenua or something like that as well. I think that should not be underplayed as a potential option going forward.

If may just talk to what I see as some of the big problems with regards to the decision making for much Māori land. And I can give you the example in Taranaki with Parininihi ki Waitotara This is an entity with a large tract of land, nowhere near what it had originally. It lost a lot through the—well, not the Public Works Act, but more actually the Māori trustee back in the day and a few things like that. It lost a lot of land. One of their challenges is that today they actually have a shareholding of over 11,000 shareholders and, to tell the truth, they can’t even find half of those people. As Māori land is governed by Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, it prescribes there that any major decision of an entity like that does require the majority of shareholders to be engaged in that decision. That is literally impossible for entities such as Parininihi. And that’s just one example. I’m sure there’s other incorporations, other entities around New Zealand.

An interesting fact that came out of the Māori Trustee Te Tumu Paeroa is that their shareholding now is getting to eight decimal places. That’s how small it is. That’s what fragmentation is actually happening to shareholdings. There’s a stack there. There’s something like 2.6 million shareholders within Māori land, and we understand that that’s about 5 or 6 percent of the total land of New Zealand. The other 94 percent has about the same number of landowners. That’s actually the enormity of the ownership structure of Māori land. My point is it’s actually very, very difficult for Māori to be able to get on and do things, and I think it’s something that this Government should be looking at. I’m pleased to hear what the Minister for Land Information said about the work that he’s doing on the Public Works Act. It needs to be looked at. I think it needs to be looked at as a whole and not in piecemeal here. So, Hūhana, I am not able to commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. May I first begin my speech by acknowledging the member Hūhana Lyndon for what is a sensible bill. To those following along in its progress who have an interest in Māori land and who have had dealings with Māori land that was subject to either public works takings in the past or in more contemporary settings, this is a really difficult thing for many, many people who are following this closely because of the history associated with public works takings.

What are we seeing tonight? We’re seeing two major parties who know that any Minister who is responsible for public works takings of any kind treats these sorts of decisions with dignity and some level of humility. Everyone who is affected by public works takings is in that position because they have already had a negotiation with a Crown agency and do not want to sell. These are people at the end of the line. These are people who want and need their land because it’s their farm, because it’s their home, because it’s their business and they do not want to see that go out of their ownership, because they have some long association with that. It is a serious thing to need to get to the end of the line as a Government, but there are some situations in which that is warranted, and that’s been acknowledged by speakers from both the National Party and Labour Party.

Instead, we have two minor parties of the right who are using this as just another culture war, as just another decision that they will never have to make because they will not be in charge of this as a Government Minister who has to look into the eyes of the people that they are taking land from that means something to them and telling them that the Government can and so it will. No politician in this House will return to their electorate and make a speech like that. No one here who represents their communities will treat this so flippantly that they would say, “Yeah, the Government can take your land and so we will.” No one believes that this is something that Governments want to do to people, and certainly not in a situation where you have Māori landowners who have faced 180 years of public works takings which have not only dispersed traditional communities, taken away a traditional land access, and meant that people are landless and wealthless in their own homes, in their own communities. That is not an outcome that anyone wants to see.

This bill has some problems with it, but these are things that we can resolve at select committee. This is an opportunity to get around the table in a cross-partisan way and have a discussion about what are the bottom lines here, because anyone who is in charge of this will have some bottom lines. No Minister is going to run roughshod over Māori land or general land in this way, so there are surely some ways that we could be updating this law to actually reflect what are the negotiations going on now. If we had a bill like this—and everyone knows this—it would force Crown agencies to negotiate in a different way. There wouldn’t be no bridges. There wouldn’t be no viaducts. There wouldn’t be no overpasses. There would, in fact, be a coming together and a meeting of minds between landowners and Crown agencies. Imagine that—imagine that—where Aotearoa New Zealand was a place where Māori land owners could negotiate with the Crown. That is looking forward. The ACT member said that that was looking backwards.

I think that all of us should be aspiring to a New Zealand where, in 2040, two hundred years after the Treaty, we can expect that Government agencies will not only sit down with Māori New Zealanders but Government agencies will sit down with landowners—all landowners who are affected by this—and have the kind of negotiation that we expect of a Government that represents people. That is not using the provisions of the Public Works Act in a way that targets people and where people feel like there is a history of land loss and dispossession because of this Act and so are coming to the table with that in their minds. This doesn’t just mean a loss of land for some people; for some people, this means a history of a Government that has taken and taken and taken and given them nothing back. Paper roads where roads have not been built. Schools which are now no longer schools and service some private land which was given by iwi for that purpose of education. Land that was given to churches where a church no longer lives but supports the income of that charitable church.

These are the public works takings that that side of the House—and it isn’t the National Party—are defending in this history. This doesn’t have to be another culture war—not this one too.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to add my contribution to this first reading of the Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill. I too, like my colleague David MacLeod, would like to begin with commending you, Hūhana Lyndon. Thank you for the passion with which—what I’ve noticed actually—you do everything. I’d like to acknowledge you and I’d like to acknowledge the whakaaro behind this bill. I’d also like to acknowledge the history that we’ve touched on, the history that has led to a lot of the pain that underpins the discussions we’ve heard tonight—history that I’m learning a lot about since moving to New Zealand Aotearoa, and I’d like to acknowledge that as I embark on this speech.

I guess if our party and our Government weren’t embarking on what we’re saying is an overhaul of the Public Works Act, to be honest, and you always get honesty from me, this would be a very hard speech, but I’m comforted, Hūhana, by the fact that we are embarking on this overhaul of the Public Works Act. Again, I repeat, while I acknowledge the true and authentic intent behind this bill, the National Party, as we’ve heard, is not supporting this bill, but we are embarking on what we see as major reform of the Public Works Act.

I’d like to, if you don’t mind, Madam Speaker, just highlight what kind of comforts me tonight, some key elements of this reform. I know that Arena Williams just mentioned: imagine a situation where we’re actually talking with the landowners. Part of the reforms that we’re going to make is there will be mandatory mediation for compensation and disputes between parties. Part of the reforms, as well, is that we’re going to be refining the role of the Environment Court, just to streamline objections and streamline them fairly and efficiently.

Again, I’d like to say that I’m comforted that I feel that the reforms that we’re making with the Public Works Act are taking a balanced approach with the backdrop of the horrendous history when it comes to Māori land. I know that the compulsory acquisition of whenua under the Public Works Act in the past has contributed to the deeply perturbing erosion of ancestral whenua, disconnection from cultural identity, and these longstanding injustices. They cannot be ignored. With the balanced approach that we’re seeking to achieve with this overhaul of the Public Works Act, I do believe that the Government is respecting history and is acknowledging the pain—a lot of the pain that took place—but there’s no doubt about it that we also want to ensure that we can pave the way for economic growth, for infrastructure development, and for prosperity for all communities as a whole.

As I said, the public works amendment bill—well, I didn’t say this, but it will be introduced in the middle of this year. It comforts me, as I don’t, unfortunately, commend this bill, Hūhana, but there is work being done. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I just remind the member to use another member’s full name when you refer to them.

RIMA NAKHLE: My apologies, sorry.

I stand here with no comfort in this House. I stand here offended on behalf of te iwi Māori at what has been shared in this House by members who are historically illiterate—historically illiterate—to the loss of te iwi Māori. It’s not historic; it’s today. Nā wai i teka [What a bunch of lies] it’s historical; it’s today. Patricia Grace stood for her whenua only 10 years ago. This isn’t from the time of the signing of Te Tiriti; this is today. We have got quarries that still have our whenua, e hamahamangia ana e te Kāwanatanga, [that are being quarried by the Government,] today and our people want those quarries back. You took it, you used it, then you passed it around yourselves as the Crown and then you never gave it back.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The Speaker did not do that.

HŪHANA LYNDON: We are a people under siege right now. Te iwi Māori are under siege. The provisions of this review that the Minister for Land Information has undertaken ignored the advice of officials. His officials said, “Include Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. Have a good look at it. Let’s be comprehensive.” He ignored the advice and kept it narrow for fast-track public works, for a fast-track approach to speed it up, because that’s the focus of this Government. It’s not about meaningful engagement; it’s about singling out the Minister’s ability to have the power to say yes or no. That’s what’s happening in this reform. That’s what this Government is doing to the people of New Zealand, let alone te iwi Māori.

Do you know how expensive it is for Māori to go to the Environment Court when you can’t even get a dollar together to live peacefully on your own land, the little bit of land that we have left—less than 5 percent—and then we have to go and fight you in the Environment Court? How on earth is te iwi Māori to even stand against the public works takings on our whenua? You have no idea of the burden that te iwi Māori suffers because of this Act. This is lived experience for our people. Do not think that this is a historic experience and don’t think that a Treaty settlement is going to make it any better.

Just like Matua Adrian has shared, we apologise in one breath and then we take again. We stand here and we mihi and we give these speeches to iwi and say, “Here’s your one to two cents in the dollar.” Then we take again. We come through the next week and we’re saying no to meaningful engagement and giving Māori the ability to say yes or no to public works takings.

What is wrong with fairness? What is wrong for the people of Taranaki to come to the table and have a meaningful negotiation and make an informed decision, resourced completely, to come in and negotiate a pathway through, and if they don’t agree, that you stand down, you actually take your road or your railway or whatever else you’re doing and you go around the block? That’s what the Crown has done for Pākehā for generations. Pākehā landowners got their land, they kept it, and Māori suffered. How many marae and urupā do we have in this country that have State highways running right through them? Come to Ōtaki. Come to Waiomio. You will see State highways right through our wāhi tapu.

Don’t think that this is not something that Māori are passionate about. We will fight. We will fight the fast-track public works. We will fight it because it’s our land and it’s very little that we have left. When you don’t have anything, that’s all you’ve got. And when you talk about infrastructure and how we all benefit—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Please don’t bring the Speaker into your debate.

HŪHANA LYNDON: I’m not bringing it. Anyhow, if you’re talking about infrastructure, go and talk in Pānguru. Go and talk in the back of Ngapipito. We have been neglected for infrastructure for generations. We don’t benefit from infrastructure and investment in these rural Māori communities, because it’s so rural that there’s nothing else there of benefit for general New Zealand. Why is it that it has taken so long to fix our roads after Cyclone Gabrielle? Yep, you’re going to come through and you’re going to put a State highway right through us, the four-lane highway. Nau mai, haere mai, Northland Expressway. How much whenua Māori is going to suffer?

I stand here and I am deeply concerned for what’s going to come, because whenua Māori is precious. Whenua Māori should be something that we cherish and come to the table as meaningful Te Tiriti partners and say yes or no. Why not send it to the select committee? Why not allow us to come in and provide our voice and input into this and find workable solutions? We have a Government that is anti - workable solutions with Māori, and that’s a crying shame.