Turia Tariana: Manfeild Park Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
Turia Tariana: Manfeild Park Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2714] 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 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 Ngati Kauwhata were indeed racing when this bill was introduced last August. 
There is an extensive history a whakapapa to settlement on Ngati 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 Manawatu District Council the Feilding Industrial Agricultural and Pastoral Association and the Manawatu Car Club. Feeling is thus running high about the need for Ngati Kauwhata’s property rights and kaitiakitanga to be recognised and validated before any other decisions are made about their whenua. 
The hearts of the Maori Party MPs were also racing when we raised the exclusion of Ngati 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 Ngati 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 Ngati Raukawa claim Wai 113 and the more specific Ngati 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 Maori 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 Tawhai north and Okahukura Maori land blocks would have been sufficient reason for caution. Ngati 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 Ngati Kauwhata. The Maori Party will do its utmost to defend mana whenua rights and to advance Te Kauwhata’s interests. This House needs to know that Ngati 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 Ngati 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 Ngati 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: Ngati 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 Maori property rights differently from non-Maori 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. Ngati 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 Ngati 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 Ngati 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 Maori. He concludes that a colonisation process that has marginalised Maori from land must surely be woven through an explanation of poor Maori 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 Maori 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 Ngati Kauwhata and to show that they had been heard. The Maori Party will continue to oppose this bill until such time as the aspirations of Ngati Kauwhata are given life. 
Amendments recommended by the Local Government and Environment Committee by majority agreed to.