Mahuta Nanaia: Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mahuta Nanaia: Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 17 June 2009. Volume:655;Page:4422. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I rise to make a contribution on the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the member in charge of the bill Te Ururoa Flavell for his efforts. I register the intention of Labour to support the first reading of the bill. I also note that the bill will be sent to the Local Government and Environment Committee and I support that intention. In terms of the issues that will be raised within the context of this bill I think it will be useful for the select committee to hear them. 
The intent of the bill is to rectify longstanding grievances which have already been discussed by the sponsoring member. Those grievances are about how under the Public Works Act land has been acquired for specific purposes but has been retained long after those purposes have expired or perhaps some of the purposes have changed over time. I know from a number of local examples throughout the country that there are situations where land acquired has not been used for the initial purpose for which it was acquired and has been the subject of a number of Treaty of Waitangi claims. The point has been well made that the bill will raise a number of issues in that regard. 
The bill also applies to general land and there are numerous examples throughout our various communities and cities of very important and serious issues to do with the way in which the Public Works Act has or has not achieved its purpose. 
The bill raises a number of questions. Given that I have such a short time in which to speak I want to put some of those questions before the House. I hope that in the fullness of time and through the submission process the select committee may make some useful amendments in support of the intent of this bill in order to help it achieve its purpose. In that regard the first issue that I see is the definition of “the Crown” and who that signifies. If one looks at the way the Public Works Act works one sees that the definition should include requiring authorities it should include local government it should include Crown entities and it should most definitely include Crown agencies. That is the first point. 
The second point is in terms of the solatium payments. When Matt Robson initiated the review of the Public Works Act in 2001 a number of submissions stated that the issue of the solatium payments should be considered further in order to broaden the implication of the solatium payment. I understand that the intent of the bill aims to achieve that. 
I want to raise for further consideration by this House—and I hope it comes up through the submission process—the way in which solatium payments will be negotiated on a case by case basis with landowners. There is some indication in the bill that the circumstances in which lands were acquired should be taken into account when the solatium payment is decided. But more important the issue of lost opportunities that have or have not occurred on that land should be taken into account. That is a really important point because some lands that were acquired for a particular purpose have been used and then no longer utilised and development on those lands has not been taken into account—for example lands taken for education purposes which may have buildings on them; and lands taken for railway purposes which may have some developments on them. So that is an important issue that should be raised and I hope it comes up at the select committee. 
The last matter I raise for the consideration of the House which may be answered further on down the track is the application of this bill with regard to current claims before the Waitangi Tribunal. Is it the intention that this bill will supersede current claims before the Waitangi Tribunal that are about issues to do with the Public Works Act or is the intention that the claims process for the Waitangi Tribunal and the process proposed by the bill will operate in conjunction with each other? I do not think those questions could be answered fully in the House in this regard but they should be pursued further at the select committee. 
Without further ado I again acknowledge Te Ururoa and his fine efforts. I hope the select committee draws on some of the findings of the 2001 review because they will be a useful contribution to the consideration of the bill.