Hawkins George: Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hawkins George: Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 21 July 2010. Volume:665;Page:12560. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I start by congratulating Mr Flavell on bringing the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill to the House. One of the important duties of a member of Parliament is to put before the House one’s own ideas and the changes one wants to make. This bill is all about trying to make a difference. For that reason alone I congratulate the member. 
I also say to him that this bill brought about so many issues that one did not know about when one first read it. It became more and more complicated as we went into it. I say to Mr Flavell that perhaps in the fullness of time we will see another bill based on this issue. You see when a member presents a bill to the House that member does not have the resources that a Government has to plan it or to look at all the fish-hooks that are in it—and there are many in this bill. 
No one can criticise Mr Flavell for having honourable intentions and realistic expectations that the House will want to address the fairness element of the Public Works Act. The Public Works Act is not all about fairness at all. One of the submitters was the Ardmore Airport company. The land at Ardmore was originally used in World War II as a place where a military airport could be built. Of course over the years things have changed. It is a very very busy airport. Indeed if this bill had proceeded it would have caused all sorts of dilemmas for the airport. 
I think one of the worst aspects of the Public Works Act which was drawn to the attention of the select committee was that many of the original intentions for taking land under that Act changed over time. When people take land and turn it to some other use people soon forget the original use. Ardmore Airport turned into a teachers’ college then Auckland University’s engineering section and housing and now it is being used as an airport. The No. 4 Squadron of the Air Training Corps has a base there. A helicopter service is there now. Things change over time and this bill needs to address those sorts of questions. 
We have a situation whereby many councils around New Zealand would be terrified if the bill went through unchanged. They would be scrambling to see what land they took under the various provisions of the Public Works Act and what consequences could flow on from that. For example land may have been taken many years ago and be now used for public reserves. Land taken for public reserves may now be used for car parking. There could be all sorts of problems. 
People came along to the Local Government and Environment Committee and made submissions. The really interesting thing in listening to the submissions was that no one was against the basic concept of being fair and making sure that land is used for its original purpose. But time is a funny thing—it changes things dramatically. I think most people realise that. Things changed quite dramatically in relation to Ardmore Airport and the Auckland International Airport. I well remember that at Mangere where the international airport is there was once a grass flying strip with cows all around it. It is now quite different and it will continue to change. 
I think that we make these moves under the Act with the best of intentions. I well remember having to deal with some of these issues when I was the Mayor of Papakura and it was always a dilemma to try to change the purpose for which land was taken. I say to Mr Flavell that he should not give up. Hopefully when there is a review of the Public Works Act this matter will become part of that review. 
There is a strong feeling that a lot of the land that has been taken under the Public Works Act has been Maori land. When people feel aggrieved by land being taken from them they do not get down to the fine detail of why it was taken and what it is now being used for. It was their land and it is not being used for its original purpose. I do not think this will be the last time we debate this matter in Parliament. I hope that either later on in the term of this Parliament or in the next Parliament there will be a new bill. I think the challenge is to the Government itself to introduce legislation and use the resources it has to present what is a very complicated issue to the House in a way that enables many of the problems to be resolved. When one is a member with not very many resources it is extremely tough. 
I think I can say without fear of contradiction that everyone on the select committee took a great interest in the bill. That interest was nothing other than genuine and I think we did the best we could to work through some of the problems. But they were too numerous. I do not think that the bill could be put in a workable manner. The select committee has reported back in a way that I think clears out all the fish-hooks. We have laid them open. No one on the select committee criticises Mr Flavell. I think that everyone on the committee thinks he did a good job. 
I conclude by saying that yes a lot of work has been done by the Waitangi Tribunal and lots of problems have been solved. This is another problem under different legislation that needs to be addressed. I hope it will be. Finally I say once more that Labour understands and has sympathy with the issue but we cannot support the bill in its present form.