Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) Link to this

I move, That the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill be now read a second time. It gives me a lot of pleasure to pick up the baton on this legislation from my predecessor, the Hon Steve Maharey, who did a lot of work in bringing this bill to the House and seeing it through to the select committee. It is a piece of legislation that Mr Maharey described as a modest bill. I prefer to think of it as efficient. There are not too many things that are modest that come out of Palmerston North. A cursory glance at the list of my predecessors would attest to that, I should think.

Of course, Palmerston North has very much to be immodest about. There is Massey University, which has campuses—everywhere it seems these days—in Mr Power’s electorate and in Palmerston North, as well; Centrepoint theatre, one of the few working professional theatres in a provincial city; a standard of living that I am quite sure is unsurpassed by any other city in New Zealand; and the glorious sight of the sun rising over the Tararua Ranges as the blades of the wind farm turbines whirl below. One of the showpieces in Palmerston North is, of course, the showgrounds, which are also known as Arena Manawatu. On the weekend just gone, I was at Arena Manawatu with about 8,500 other people from the Manawatū and Palmerston North watching the Manawatu Turbos, who, sadly, went down to Northland. The Turbos have had their most successful season so far, by quite some stretch, and they have been doing very well. Sadly, the team did not quite make it against Northland last weekend, but it is heading over to Hawke’s Bay to take on the Magpies next weekend, and I look forward to heading over to Napier to watch that match.

From the first reading of this bill, I note that Chris Tremain compared the mood of the House on this bill to the mood of Manawatū and Hawke’s Bay rugby. It was interesting that so many National Party members who were in Opposition at the time chose to speak on this bill. I do not know what it was about Palmerston North that day that those members were so keen to recount their affinity with it. Perhaps today, given the amount of time we have on our hands, many of the Government members might decide to get up and say something about this bill, as it might look slightly odd if the House rises as early as this today, given that we will be back late tomorrow night.

The bill essentially does three things. Firstly, it provides for the transfer of the management and control of the land that comprises the Palmerston North Showgrounds from the Palmerston North Showgrounds Board of Control to the Palmerston North City Council. Secondly, it allows for the dissolution of the Palmerston North Showgrounds Board of Control. Thirdly, it repeals the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act 1974. The Act enabled the Manawatu and West Coast Agricultural and Pastoral Association to dispose of the showgrounds to the Palmerston North City Council as a recreation reserve, and constituted the Palmerston North Showgrounds Board of Control for the management and control of the land as a recreation reserve. The 1974 Act resulted from a deed of agreement between the parties under which the city council would develop and improve the showgrounds, and they would be available to the A and P society to be used as showgrounds on a number of days each year. The A and P society no longer requires the use of the showgrounds, seeing as the A and P show has headed over to Feilding. The board of control now wishes to dissolve and transfer its rights, assets, and liabilities to the city council.

The bill went to the Local Government and Environment Committee, which returned it with no amendments. I thank the members and chair of the committee for their work. One issue that was raised—and I note that Te Ururoa Flavell raised the issue in the first reading of the bill—was the status of the land in relation to Ngāti Kauwhata’s Treaty claims in the Palmerston North area. It is great to see the chair of the committee in the Chamber this afternoon. I am very pleased to see that the select committee has come to the conclusion that the transfer of the land will have no bearing whatsoever on the claim. Essentially, the land as it is at the moment would be inaccessible to such a claim. That will continue to be the case. Hopefully, that will satisfy Ngāti Kauwhata in their concerns and allow us to push ahead with this, as I said, very efficient, small bill to tidy up some loose ends.

I know that a number of staff at the Palmerston North City Council will be very pleased to see the bill progressing. They will have to think of a new first thing to say to me when they see me in Palmerston North rather than asking how far the bill is getting through. It is a very great pleasure to see it moving on. I certainly commend the bill to the House.

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) Link to this

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that nice addition to my introduction. I appreciate my electorate being recognised from time to time. In the old days members were recognised only by their electorate name. Would it not be interesting to go back to those days?

The Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill, as Iain Lees-Galloway, the MP for Palmerston North, has indicated, is a bill that has merit and should be progressed quickly and swiftly through the House. I am advised by the senior Government whip that so meritorious is the legislation that we will not be delaying its passage in any way, shape, or form following my contribution today. We are keen to see the matter moving. I give a slight nod in the direction of Mr Lees-Galloway’s predecessor, the Hon Steve Maharey, whom I spent many hours with in this House debating a variety of legislation. This bill is one of those pieces of legislation on which we agreed. If members check Hansard and the first reading debate of the bill they will find that both the Hon Steve Maharey and I had only very short contributions to make in respect of the bill, largely because it was one of the rare occasions when we agreed on legislation in such a concerted way.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) Link to this

I am pleased to take a very short call on the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill because I chaired the Local Government and Environment Committee when the bill first came to us. Although we may think that these sorts of bills that come to a select committee are small and very tidy and just sort out issues in a region or district on behalf of a council, the bill raised some concern when it first came before us and we sent it back to the Palmerston North City Council. Not all of us at the select committee were comfortable, because we were concerned about overlapping Treaty claims and we could not be given any assurance at the select committee that there was no outstanding Treaty claim over this piece of land.

It is very appropriate that Te Ururoa Flavell raised those concerns, because often we take it for granted that all the work has been done by the authority that is sponsoring a local bill, and sometimes that work is not undertaken to the level of our expectation as parliamentarians. We are not there to be default judge and jury on decisions that are made in a region or district. That was the point of concern originally. Of course we on this side of the House are not against competition, but the A and P shows were usually for competitions for sponge cakes, sand saucers, and horse riding. As the previous speaker, Simon Power, said, we would love to see the speedway and racing cars at Manfeild Park too, but the bill is about sorting out land used by the Manawatu and West Coast Agricultural and Pastoral Association and vesting it back to the Palmerston North City Council.

It is a very simple bill. Now that we are happy about the arrangements for what could have been outstanding claims Labour is very happy to support the bill today. It is wonderful that Iain Lees-Galloway has carried on the tradition started by Steve Maharey, the previous MP for Palmerston North. Steve Maharey taught him everything he knows, and Iain Lees-Galloway will have a long career in the House as a good Labour member for the good electorate of Palmerston North. In fact, Mr Lees-Galloway should have worn his “I love Palmy” badge, because we in Labour all love Palmy. We are delighted to be in the Chamber today to support the bill for Palmerston North. Having the bill in the House a day before urgency is a rather interesting House management issue. Tomorrow we will be debating in urgency until 10 o’clock at night, but tonight we will run out of work. That is most peculiar and awkward House management. It could have been entirely avoided, had the Leader of the House managed urgency and not had members sitting in the Chamber 3 weeks in a row in and out of urgency with knee-jerk reactions to major legislation. We are delighted to be debating and supporting the bill today.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) Link to this

Without wishing to draw the proceedings of the House to a close earlier than even my predecessor has intimated, I simply advise the House that the Green Party supports the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill, which proposes to transfer the management and control of the Palmerston North Showgrounds from the Palmerston North Showgrounds Board of Control to the Palmerston North City Council. We wish the promoters of the bill well. Thank you.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) Link to this

There was a 50 percent chance that Ngāti Kauwhata would be heard, heeded, and respected in respect of the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill. After all, only two submissions were received by the Local Government and Environment Committee: one supported and one opposed the legislation. So the probability was high that the sun would shine on Ngāti Kauwhata. Such high stakes were inevitably helped by the compelling evidence provided in their submission. I will take a rather unusual step of repeating a key statement from their submission for the benefit of the House. Ngāti Kauwhata said that they “must continue in our responsibilities as tangata whenua to protect the land and natural resources of our district. To do this, we must object to and make others aware of the stealth that the Crown and their Agents, Local Government, will use to keep Ngati Kauwhata marginalised from their lands and in poor health to forever keep them dependent on the Crown as beneficiaries, and therefore to be slandered by those who seek power within the Crown’s structures.”

Those are strong words that underline the passion and the responsibility Ngāti Kauwhata uphold in protecting their history and preserving their heritage. Ngāti Kauwhata stand by the contention that they did not sell interests in the Te Ahu-turanga Block. Ngāti Kauwhata instead believe that the land was taken by stealth and by devious purchasing practices by the Crown and its agents. Ngāti Kauwhata claim that the land is part of the Te Ahu-turanga Block taken from them by proclamation and is subject to two Waitangi Tribunal claims: Wai 784 and Wai 972. There is another new claim, Wai 1461, regarding the Rangitīkei-Manawatū Block. It is a conjoint claim between Ngāti Kauwhata, Ngāti Raukawa, and all of Ngā Iwi o Te Reureu.

This history of Treaty injustices and contemporary breaches was heard by the select committee, but it chose a different history. It opted to favour the history presented by the Palmerston North City Council. The council supports the bill on the grounds that the relevant land and most of the other assets are already owned by it and that effectively it has managed the showgrounds over the last 2 years. The committee was privy to the expert advice of public health champion, Ngāti Kauwhata member, and Assistant Vice-Chancellor (Māori and Pasifika) of Massey University, Professor Mason Durie. His analysis included the conclusion that a lack of access to tribal land must be woven into explanations of the chronic poor health status of Māori.

Ngāti Kauwhata were not asking for the world. They just wanted to be part of the overall governance and part of the process of managing the land that was taken from them. They humbly requested that the bill be delayed until they were able to determine the status of the land in respect of ownership and the implications of the Treaty claims over it. In considering the views of Ngāti Kauwhata, the select committee determined that any Waitangi Tribunal investigation can have no effect on the land in question given its status as private land.

With all due respect, I suggest that the select committee is not the appropriate body to make such pronouncements. If Ngāti Kauwhata believe they have the right to at least have the land in question considered as part of their claim then that is something for the Waitangi Tribunal to investigate, consider, and determine, not the select committee. When the Government purchased the Te Ahu-turanga Block from Rangitāne in 1864, it noted that there was some dispute at the time about ownership between Rangitāne and neighbouring iwi. Now, 145 years later, this bill could have been an excellent opportunity to face a dispute in the light of day, once and for all. Instead, the select committee chose to ignore the dispute, to ignore the strongly held views of Ngāti Kauwhata, and to affect the transfer of the management and control of the land of the showgrounds from the board to the Palmerston North City Council.

The showgrounds will now be fully managed and controlled by the council as a recreation site. The council’s submission to the select committee did not discuss any consultation that it may or may not have had with local iwi, including Ngāti Kauwhata. Although it appears that this legislation is not a problematic change for Rangitāne, it is utterly evident that there are longstanding and outstanding issues for Ngāti Kauwhata. The Māori Party believes that we cannot make any progress on the bill while the dispute is still manifest. We oppose this bill.