Manfeild Park Bill

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) Link to this

I move, That the Manfeild Park Bill be now read a second time. The Manfield Park Bill was referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I take this opportunity to thank that committee, and in particular its chairperson, Steve Chadwick, for not only accommodating this bill in a speedy way but also accommodating my own personal requirements to be at the committee at the time that the bill was put before it. Her ability to include me, as the member promoting the bill, was very much appreciated.

The bill did not go through the select committee without controversy. I acknowledge the concerns that have been raised by both the Green Party and the Māori Party around issues of representation on the Manfield Park Trust. I also acknowledge Metiria Turei’s contribution on the committee. Her comments are contained at the conclusion of the section in the commentary that relates to the electoral college.

I say to the Green Party and the Māori Party that I hope they consider that the extension of the bill’s report-back date—it was reported back later than we initially thought would be the case—was at least some gesture of goodwill. It enabled those who had concerns around representation on the electoral college to have an opportunity to air those concerns at the select committee in a way that ensured that they saw the process as constructive, but that also highlighted to those who will be in charge of the trust itself that some matters remain outstanding. I think that is a fair way to summarise the bill.

The bill has been substantially altered from the time it entered the select committee, and I think that proves that the select committee process—and MMP, to some extent, I say a little begrudgingly—does work. The committee discovered that the original bill as drafted by the promoter was just too prescriptive in nature. It attempted to reach down into the management and representation requirements of the Manfeild Park Trust. The select committee—and then, with the benefit of having heard submissions, the promoter of the bill—determined that the best way to avoid the legislation coming back to the House for constant revision and amendment, as the journey of the Manfeild Park Trust commenced, was simply to make the bill as wide as possible in application and to reduce somewhat the prescriptive nature of the bill’s original intent. If members look through the bill, they will see that large chunks have been struck out unanimously by the select committee—apart from the electoral college provisions, which were struck out by majority.

I do not want to say any more than that, other than to thank the Hon Steve Maharey for working alongside me on the progression of the bill. I believe that has made a difference to the way in which the bill has progressed through the House and the select committee, and I look forward to the bill completing all its stages this afternoon.

DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) Link to this

The Labour Party supports the second reading this afternoon of the Manfeild Park Bill, which is being shepherded through the House by the member for Rangitikei, Mr Simon Power.

As Mr Power said, the bill went to the Local Government and Environment Committee, where there was an opportunity for submissions to be made. As is often the case with local and private bills, there was a limited number of submissions, because the issues that the bill covers are very much localised to Manfeild Park. Indeed, the committee report notes that the committee received two submissions from interested groups and members of the public, and two from groups associated with the development of the bill. The committee heard submissions from all four groups.

Manfeild Park plays a very prominent role in the town of Feilding, being used for a number of community purposes and major public events. Those range from, obviously, motor sport through to the events of the local A and P association. Many other groups also use the park. The bill will set up a trust, and the committee has considered a number of provisions regarding how that trust can best be managed. Mr Power has already spoken about the make-up of the electoral college.

The Government will support the second reading of this bill.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) Link to this

I will take just a brief call. New Zealand First did not have a member on the Local Government and Environment Committee, which looked at this bill, but from a personal point of view I need only to look at the name of the person who promoted the bill to know that it will be pretty sensible legislation. That member, Simon Power, was on the select committee I chaired in the last Parliament, and I have to say that he was a very, very good member who made a tremendous contribution. I know that he would not put forward stupid legislation. Nevertheless, New Zealand First would support the legislation anyhow, because we think it is a sensible approach to the issue on behalf of the people of Feilding and its surrounding environments.

After reading through the report back, I compliment the select committee on its approach in, firstly, trimming the legislation to its bare necessities, and, secondly, focusing on creating an enabling piece of legislation. I am sure that this legislation will improve the manner in which Manfeild Park can be operated. I have a brother-in-law who is a petrolhead, and I am sure that he will take a keen interest in ensuring that that part of the park, in terms of motor racing, will be used in the best way possible. We in New Zealand First hope that the passage of this bill will enable Manfeild Park to be used to its fullest potential for the benefit of the people of Feilding, in particular, and also the wider community of New Zealand.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this

First of all, I thank Simon Power very much for his comment about the concerns that the Greens raised in the Local Government and Environment Committee. It is very much appreciated. But I think it is really important that the concerns of that hapū are set out for the House. The Greens considered the bill to be relatively simple and were looking forward to it being progressed. We felt confident that the issues the mana whenua had could be resolved constructively, but that was not to be the case. We had hoped the bill could be an example of the way that councils and organisations like the Feilding Industrial, Agricultural and Pastoral Association and the Manawatū Car Club could work together with mana whenua, but that did not happen. We were very saddened and surprised that the select committee facilitated that failure.

First off, let me tell members a story. Around 1876 the land owned by the mana whenua, Ngāti Kauwhata, was leased—this is my understanding from the records—long term to a farmer who owed money to the Bank of New Zealand. Because of the mortgage he had and the provisions of the lease agreement, the Bank of New Zealand forced the sale of the land that was leased without the consent of the owners, the mana whenua. Despite the mana whenua making numerous requests over the last 100-plus years to various Government departments and the courts, and making petitions to Parliaments—all of this on record—the issue of the wrongful taking of the land was not resolved, and the land remains alienated from its original owners. Now, well over 100 years later, that land has changed ownership on numerous occasions and is currently privately owned by the Manawatū District Council, the Manawatū Car Club, and the Feilding Industrial, Agricultural and Pastoral Association.

Given the history of the land and the fact that it was wrongly taken, which is very common in this country, and given that the mana whenua have been trying to have the issue resolved in a constructive way for the last 100 years, with all of their petitioning in writing—even going so far as to lodge a Wai claim—what might we have expected the hapū to have asked the select committee for? Did they want the land to be returned to them in its entirety, without charge to them? No, they did not. Did they want the current owners to pay them vast sums of money, to compensate them for the loss of profits that they might have had from the use and development of that land over the last 100 years? No, they did not. Did they ask to take royalties or rents for future use of the land—the historical taking of which they have been trying to resolve? No, they did not. Did they want to have management of the land—to be the decision makers over it, and to have the power of veto over any decisions made about the use of it? No, they did not.

All they asked was to be represented on the electoral college that would appoint the trustees who would manage the land. That is all they wanted. They wanted to be part of the overall governance. They did not want a veto, and they did not want the chair; they just wanted to be part of the process for the land that was wrongfully taken from them.

What did the car club, the council, and the pastoral association say, when asked whether the hapū could be on the electoral college? They said no. I asked them why they were disagreeing with such a simple, polite, and reasonable request, but they just did not want those people on that college. I was appalled that the select committee then supported that position by taking the electoral college out of the bill, thereby making it impossible for us to deal with the issues constructively. We could have done something about that. It is absolutely astounding that in 2006 this is the state of so-called race relations in this country—that two Māori representatives on a simple electoral college are just two Māori too many.

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

The billboards welcoming visitors to Manfeild Autocourse, one of New Zealand’s premier motor sport venues, promote the call to “feel your heart racing”. The hearts of the mana whenua of the land in question, Ngāti Kauwhata, were indeed racing when this bill was introduced last August.

There is an extensive history, a whakapapa, to settlement on Ngāti Kauwhata lands. There remains no evidence of the consent of governors to the alienation of that land, and there are accordingly significant issues surrounding the ownership of Manfeild Park, claimed by the Manawatū District Council, the Feilding Industrial, Agricultural and Pastoral Association, and the Manawatū Car Club. Feeling is thus running high about the need for Ngāti Kauwhata’s property rights and kaitiakitanga to be recognised and validated before any other decisions are made about their whenua.

The hearts of the Māori Party MPs were also racing when we raised the exclusion of Ngāti Kauwhata at the first reading of the bill, and here, I must say, we were warmly received by the member for Rangitikei. We were delighted that Simon Power was supportive of the recommendation to meet with the chairman of Ngāti Kauwhata Trust, Dennis Emery, and trustee Professor Mason Durie. At that time he said that he anticipated that “the trust will meet with iwi representatives during the submission process and will welcome their input.” From such a meeting would come volumes of archival information about the Kawakawa Block, the subject of Ngāti Raukawa claim Wai 113 and the more specific Ngāti Kauwhata claim Wai 782. These claims are currently tabled with the Waitangi Tribunal.

At a very minimum we assumed that the Local Government and Environment Committee would make sure Māori do not have a claim on land before it is transferred. We would have thought the situations of Paraparaumu Airport or the sale by Landcorp of Taurewa Station, which is part of the seven Tāwhai north and Ōkahukura Māori land blocks, would have been sufficient reason for caution. Ngāti Kauwhata would like the opportunity to address and resolve their claims through the tribunal process before any further decisions are made. This is a simple enough request, one would think.

It was therefore very disappointing to read the report back from the Local Government and Environment Committee and to see such little consideration given to the suggestions put forward by Ngāti Kauwhata. The Māori Party will do its utmost to defend mana whenua rights and to advance Te Kauwhata’s interests. This House needs to know that Ngāti Kauwhata are not opposed to the development of Manfeild Park, but they do want their unique status as mana whenua recognised, they want to be involved in an ongoing fashion, and they want their relationship to their land to be acknowledged.

When Dr Sharples spoke on this bill during the first reading debate, he tracked over the history of this land. He advised how some 74 years ago, in 1932, tribal elders took a petition to Parliament outlining the unlawful taking of their land, but the petition was destroyed by fire. That petition outlined the alienation and unlawful taking of the Kawakawa Block. Te Komiti Marae o Kauwhata Trust member Edward Penetito has provided details of the missing 17 acres known as the Kawakawa Block. All that Ngāti Kauwhata are asking is that we think clearly, motivated to provide a proud legacy for their children and mokopuna based on justice. If we act with honour and integrity, then the legacy we leave behind will be one we can all own.

The report of the select committee members noted that they were aware that some Manfeild Park land is subject to a claim before the Waitangi Tribunal. They resisted the opportunity to show leadership, backing out from the opportunity to make a stand for justice, and instead stating: “Issues concerning possible land alienation are not within the scope of the bill,”. We are all charged with the responsibility of making the hard decisions and of acting in the best interests of the nation. It is not as if members of the select committee can make out that they were unaware of the unresolved issues for Ngāti Kauwhata. They cannot cry ignorance or innocence. They must face up to the decision—they know that the issue of land ownership is contentious, yet still they have acted against one group of New Zealanders: Ngāti Kauwhata. Will they do that to others? Will they set in place a process to steal their property rights in such an underhand way? There is no integrity in treating Māori property rights differently from non-Māori property rights.

This is not enabling legislation; it is legislative theft. I remind this House of the landmark decision in 1987 by the Court of Appeal in describing the Treaty as “part of the fabric of New Zealand society” and as “the country’s founding constitutional instrument”, based on legislation that prohibits “the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.” Those are strong words—words that have as much meaning for the Manfeild Park Bill as they do for any Treaty settlement, or indeed for any issue that impacts on the social, economic, and cultural well-being of the people.

If the Treaty of Waitangi is really part of the fabric of New Zealand society, we should not run roughshod over the wishes of mana whenua to be consulted, to be involved, to be included, and to be heard. Ngāti Kauwhata asked to be included in decision making as representatives of the electoral college that is to appoint and remove trustees of the Manfeild Park Trust. They came forward with a model—a tangata whenua, tangata tiriti model—that could be used to establish provisions for Ngāti Kauwhata to be included in this bill. So how did the select committee members respond to that genuine wish for membership on the Manfeild Park Trust electoral college? They recommended that the clauses to establish an electoral college be removed. That is shameful.

There is far more than a car club, a site for an A and P show a district council, and a motor sport venue at stake here. This is about whenua—land. It is about identity, about permanence, and about property rights. Members of this House will no doubt be aware of the wealth of expressions and cultural art forms that promote a concept of the central role of land in our lives. One of Ngāti Kauwhata’s leading academics, and indeed the nation’s leading academic, Professor Mason Durie, argues that a lack of access to tribal land is a sign of ill-health for Māori. He concludes that a colonisation process that has marginalised Māori from land must surely be woven through an explanation of poor Māori health status. The United Nations report by the special rapporteur also endorses that view, noting: “As a result of land sales and breaches of the Treaty by the Crown, Māori lost most of their land, resources, self-governance and cultural identity.”

Those issues are at the core of the status and current position of tanga whenua in Aotearoa today. With the Manfeild Park Bill this Parliament had a chance to make a difference, to write a new history. As the member of Parliament for Te Tai Hauauru I am profoundly sad that the select committee did not take up this opportunity to be innovative, to address the property rights and interests of Ngāti Kauwhata, and to show that they had been heard. The Māori Party will continue to oppose this bill until such time as the aspirations of Ngāti Kauwhata are given life.