Davis KelvinKELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): I am quite stunned actually by that contribution from the member Nuk Korako. If he is talking about separatism and division we just need to look at how Māori over the years have been separated and divided from our land. Māori used to possess 100 percent of the land; we are now down to less than 5 percent of the land and yet he talks about equality and not being separate. Look quite frankly I am disappointed. I mean there have been so many ways that Māori have been separated from their land—from our land I should say—over the years.Let us look at some of the ways—the old land claims for example. Back in the day a settler would turn up and say I've purchased 10000 acres from this old chief up north." and then the Crown comes along and surveys it and says: "Actually you've only purchased 1000 acres." You would think that the other 9000 acres would be returned to that old chief up north but instead it would go to the Crown. That is wrong.Let me give you an example: think of the area south of Whangarei around Ruakākā and Waipū. There was a Waipū Block that was 40000 acres; the Ruakākā Block was 14800 acres. Not a single acre is left for the Patuharakeke tribe around that area because it was taken to settle Nova Scotian settlers. Also in that area—people wonder why there is only one marae in that area Takahiwai. That is because James Busby 6 weeks before the Treaty of Waitangi was signed went out and—for the princely sum of £40—bought a few knick-knacks 60 blankets and a mere 100000 acres of land. Some 25 years later he was compensated—because he ended up losing that land—£36000. What a capital gain over 25 years: from £40 to £36000. Those sorts of transactions went on all the time and it is why we are at the point where we are now: where Māori own less than 4 percent of the land. It was taken for settlers.We just need to read—in fact consider the Taranaki. It is interesting that we have been talking Taranaki all evening. We just need to read the Taranaki claims bills and see the lengths that were taken to dispossess the people of Taranaki of millions and millions of acres. We have heard the story about Parihaka: how through peaceful protest the villagers of Parihaka went and pulled up survey pegs and that—and for that sort of resistance they had their land confiscated.The Native Land Court: that was just a mechanism to separate and divide Māori from their land. Instead of land being held in tribal ownership the land was divvied up—10 owners per block—and then it was easier to pick off those owners and land. The tribes and Māori were dispossessed from their land.We just need to look at rates—the way Māori could not afford rates even though they got no services. I remember reading some research around the Ngāpuhi settlements. There are some beautiful islands in the Bay of Islands. Māori could not afford the rates—the rates were for street lighting rubbish collection and all that sort of stuff—on this island where nobody lived. But because they could not pay for the rates the land was confiscated. They were compensated by a bit of land in Whangarei around the area of Ōtāngarei. No disrespect to the area of Ōtāngarei but if you compare that with living on one of the islands in the Bay of Islands—I know where I would prefer to live.The Public Works Act has been used for example to build schools. Then when the schools have closed down the land does not necessarily go back to the original owners—it certainly does not swiftly go back to the original owners—so whānau have been dispossessed from their land through that mechanism.We in the Labour Party support this bill to the select committee. Personally as a Māori I think it is really good. Catherine Delahunty I appreciate the fact that you have put this in the ballot and that it has been drawn. I certainly was a little bit dismayed at the contribution from the speaker before me. Thank you."