Manfeild Park Bill

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) Link to this

I move, That the Manfeild Park Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee, and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 27 March 2006.

The Manfeild Park Bill, a local bill, has as its aim to facilitate the transfer of Manfeild Park in Feilding to the Manfeild Park Trust and to make other provisions in respect of that trust, which I will come to shortly. Prior to giving a bit of background to the bill, I take the opportunity to thank Steve Maharey, who has, in effect, co-sponsored this bill with me. Had the Standing Orders allowed for two members to be responsible for a bill, I am sure this would have been one of the instances where that would be the case. Feilding is the largest town in my electorate. As a result, I am moving the reading of the bill, and I have been nominated to do that in discussions with Mr Maharey.

Historically, Manfeild Park in Feilding has been owned by three separate entities: the Manawatū District Council, the Feilding Industrial, Agricultural and Pastoral Association, and the Manawatū Car Club Inc. But in order to allow for future development and the expansion of Manfeild Park in what the trust has described as an integrated manner, ownership of Manfeild Park is to be retained by the trust itself. The bill provides for the transfer of ownership by the association, in particular, for ongoing use of the land rights for the association, and for other mechanical matters to do with the appointment and removal of trustees of the trust. The trust deed that associates itself with the industrial, agricultural, and pastoral association is the document that proves to have sufficient inflexibility to require a local bill to come to the House in order to facilitate those changes of ownership.

The bill requires that the owners of the land comprising Manfeild Park transfer the land to the Manfeild Park Trust for the consideration specified in respect of each owner. The bill goes on to outline the different amounts concerned, and then it also requires the three owners to apply the consideration received for the transfer by way of limited recourse loans back to the trust at the home-loan lending rate offered by the BNZ as at 24 September each year. The loans themselves are repayable only if the trust is placed into liquidation. The bill also provides for exclusive and non-exclusive use of parts of the park by the association, to allow it to continue to hold the Feilding A and P show, sheep and ram sales, an open day for mohair producers, shearing championships, cattle shows, and other events, all of which form an historic part of the Feilding community. Members will be aware—in particular, I see Jim Sutton is sitting in the House, and he will certainly be aware—of the impact that the Feilding saleyards have on the Feilding community, and those other events are closely associated with the agricultural basis Feilding provides for the wider rural hinterland.

The bill also establishes, interestingly, an electoral college to appoint and remove trustees of the Manfeild Park Trust. The electoral college, in general terms, regulates its own procedure.

Originally, when I discussed this matter with the Labour Government, we were keen to see the bill expedited through the select committee procedure swiftly, with a report-back date of 27 February 2006. Since that time members of the local iwi have been in touch with both Mr Maharey and me, and they have indicated that they are concerned about one or two outstanding issues relating to the land. Having discussed some of those points with Mr Dennis Emery on behalf of local iwi, and having discussed the matter further with Mr Maharey, it was considered that a report-back date of late March would allow a further month for the iwi representatives to be able to make submissions to the select committee in a considered and timely way, and also to make any representations they may wish to make to Mr Maharey or me directly. I think that is absolutely fair and proper.

It seems that the interest claim relates to some part of the Kawakawa Block, which has been owned by the Ngāti Kauwhata people. That is an issue that will need resolution as the bill progresses, and I understand that the Māori Party has determined that it will vote against the bill on that basis. My understanding is that no other party in Parliament will be voting against the bill. The other parties will be voting for the bill, which means that, hopefully, extending the time to the end of March will enable sufficient time for iwi to engage in a way that is productive. We hope that the outcome of those discussions, submissions, and the like proves to be satisfactory for all parties.

I do not intend to say any more than that. I look forward to the swift and constructive contributions that will be made by other parties, leading to my very short reply at the conclusion of this debate.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) Link to this

I will take a very short call to support this bill. I am delighted that our two local members in the area, Simon Power for Rangitikei and my colleague Steve Maharey from Palmerston North, are supporting this bill, and as I am a resident of Palmerston North, I am delighted that I have this opportunity to support this bill.

Mr Power has already explained the detail of the bill. It is a very short bill, and it is really very difficult to add much more to what has been said before. I have known this park for many years myself because I have taken part in the A and P shows held there for many years. I have taken machinery and tractors, particularly new machinery and technologies, over to Feilding to promote them among the farming community. It is a great park, which hosts many, many different activities, as Mr Power has just said. There is a sheep and ram saleyard, open days for many things, shearing championships, and cattle shows.

So this park is very essential to the people of Palmerston North and Feilding, and it is very well-used. I am delighted that this bill provides for putting the ownership of the park into a trust, which I think will be very useful in terms of managing the various functions and activities associated with the park. I am delighted to support this bill. I do not think there is a lot I can add, but I am totally in favour of this bill.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) Link to this

New Zealand First, likewise, is happy to support this bill, which we think is good common sense. In doing so, we would like to acknowledge the recognition of the local iwi concerned. It is good to see in this House that we are recognising things nowadays that we did not recognise previously, and we have a far more unified society because of it.

This bill is common sense, and it is good to see the cooperation between the rural sector and the city environment. It is also good to see that a park such as this is enjoying multi-use. Too often around the country we see one-use facilities built by previous generations no longer fitting the use they were put aside for. Sometimes the wrangling that takes place on a change of use has to be seen to be believed, and does not make any sense at all.

In this case, it appears that the multi-use includes the A and P show and motor racing. Motor racing is the one sport I follow, because it does not require me to get my body knocked around too much, and, being a small man, that is not something one wants to happen too often. So it is good to see that the motor racing girls and boys are being looked after and it is good to see that there is cooperation between the rural and the urban environments. It is also good to see a National Party member supporting these things in the community, after some dreadful years when that party seemed intent on burning off every local community in the country—burning off local initiative, burning off anybody who did not have a couple of million bucks to chuck around, and looking after what it saw as the free market and private enterprise.

In spite of that, and out of the goodness of our hearts, we are prepared to overlook all those things that have gone before. We are prepared to overlook the hurt, the nasty gibes that have been flung at us, and the personal attacks we have suffered. We are not only happy to support this bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee but also we are proud to do so.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

As was suggested at the beginning, the Māori Party is going to oppose this bill. As long as Māori have a claim along traditional lines, then we will support them, and we would hope that others in the House might do so.

I rise to speak to this bill because I am aware of the current Waitangi Tribunal claims in relation to the Kawakawa Block—the claim for and on behalf of Ngāti Raukawa ki Te Tonga, Wai 113. In 1989 Ngāti Raukawa lodged a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal regarding Lake Kōpūtara. This claim alleges breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi regarding environmental degradation, loss of fisheries, and loss of access. There is also another claim relating to the tribal area of Ngāti Kauwhata ki Te Tonga, submitted in the context of “surplus Crown and Local Government Lands”.

I think all members of the House need to be cautious of, and respectful about, situations in which Treaty of Waitangi claims are in place. We need to consider what opportunity mana whenua have had to address and resolve their claims through the Waitangi Tribunal, before any further decisions are made about Manfeild Park.

Further questions also need to be raised about whether the land at Manfeild Park is indeed in private ownership. As members of this House will know, private land is not generally available for use in Treaty settlements. Claimants and owners of private land are of course free to come to their own arrangements. However, the Crown does not consider it appropriate that it play a role in such a transaction. I believe we need to ask some hard questions about ownership, about the history of land alienation, and about the basis for land transfer, before we can even begin, today, to contemplate the issues affecting the Manfeild Park Trust.

We also need to understand the history, the utility, and the management of Māori land, and our experience of land development. Such an opportunity can occur only through robust consultation with mana whenua—in this case, Ngāti Kauwhata—before significant decisions are made about ancestral land, resources, and the subsequent well-being of the people.

Mana whenua invest great meaning in the importance of ūkaipō, tūrangawaewae, takiwā, and rohe. These are traditional names for our relationship to the land. Twenty-five years ago the legislative review committee of the New Zealand Māori Council issued a statement that speaks of the importance and relevance of land to Māori. I quote: “Māori land has several cultural connotations for us. It provides us with a sense of identity, belonging, and continuity. It is proof of our continued existence not only as people, but as tangata whenua. It is proof of our tribal and kin group ties … It is proof of our link with the ancestors of our past, and with the generation yet to come. It is an assurance that we shall forever exist as a people, for as long as the land shall last.” To Māori , the land is our mother. Our whenua is the afterbirth, and is absolutely central to our sense of identity. It explains why we are determined, and why we have the passion, to maintain our connections between tangata whenua, atua, tīpuna; between people, land, spirituality, and our ancestors and their history. The significance of whenua is core to our culture, to our mana, to our belief system, to our being. The land is both history and our future.

In this matter, then, the question one keeps returning to is the question of history. Whose history preserves the value of the whenua on which the Manfeild Park Trust has come to rely? Most New Zealanders would know that the Manfeild Autocourse is one of New Zealand’s premier motor sport venues. How many would know it is also part of the Kawakawa Block, which was last surveyed in the 1800s? The history of the Kawakawa Block is an interesting one, worthy of discussion. From the accounts we have received, earlier last century two Pākehā farmers raised a bank loan from the Bank of New Zealand to improve the land on the Kawakawa Block. However, these two farmers encountered financial problems, so the bank moved in to take the land to cover the debt. Since that time the land has been subject to a number of private sales, with ownership now claimed by the three parties named in this bill.

Nearly 75 years ago, in 1932, a petition was brought here to Parliament by tribal elders, outlining the alienation and unlawful taking of their land, known as the Kawakawa Block, in which Manfeild Park is situated. However, due to a series of mishaps, that petition was never tabled in Parliament. The building in which the petition was housed burnt down, with all the documents being lost. What should not be lost is the memory that Ngāti Kauwhata hold of that time. Although the fire may have destroyed the petition, its flames did not destroy the oral histories passed down to their descendants today. This Parliament has a responsibility to consider that there are others who have a claim to the land. We must not let the efforts of those who petitioned this very Parliament last century be seen to have been in vain by those who petition this very Parliament in 2005.

This bill is based on the post-colonial premise that ownership has been vested in only three separate entities: the Manawatū District Council, the Feilding Industrial, Agricultural and Pastoral Association, and the Manawatū Car Club Inc. This is a view of history that is different from the view I articulated earlier. We need to be able to recognise that in Aotearoa a history existed before the arrival of Abel Tasman—in fact, 1,000 years of history. As we say: “Whatungarongaro te tangata, toitū te whenua.”—“The people may come and go, but the land will remain for ever in the memories and the minds of the people.” The tribal elders who were on their way here in 1932 are now represented in their descendants who have lodged the claim before the Waitangi Tribunal. These descendants are truly the living faces of their ancestors. Ngā kanohi ora o rātou kua mene ki te pō. It is for this reason that the Māori Party cannot support the Manfeild Park Bill 2005. Nō reira, tēnā tatou.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) Link to this

I would like to acknowledge the support of parties to seeing this bill through its first reading, and in particular to a select committee; apart from the slightly bizarre outburst by Doug Woolerton over a misconstrued history of various political parties in this House, I think the debate by and large has been pretty constructive. Could I just say to Dr Sharples that I completely acknowledge the issues that he raises, and I raised those matters in my first reading speech. I must say though that I find it curious that the member and his party have chosen to make a decision to oppose the bill prior to any of the consultative submissions having occurred. I would have thought that the issues raised by Ngāti Kauwhata will in the end be ones that need to have the committee turn its mind to them in a very serious way, and I am sure it will—Dennis Emery and Mason Durie are very eminent Māori scholars and well-known identities in the Rangitikei area.

But I think it odd that the Māori Party would vote against a bill prior to those submissions or consultations being carried out, and I would ask the party when considering the bill to approach the select committee process with the same open mind as the rest of us will, if indeed those concerns are brought to the committee by representatives of Ngāti Kauwhata.

Could I just conclude by thanking the House for its support for the bill and, in particular, as I said earlier, my colleague Steve Maharey from the region who has worked with me to ensure that the best possible version of the bill is placed before the House. I await with interest the outcome of the vote.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) Link to this

I move That the bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 27 March 2006.