Clendon David: Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clendon David: Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 21 July 2010. Volume:665;Page:12564. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora koutou. This Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill seeks in essence to give Maori the first right of purchase the first right of refusal for land that the Crown has acquired compulsorily in the event that the Crown no longer has use for that land and seeks to sell it. Maori should have the right at the very least to have first option of buying back land that was taken through the Public Works Act. The Green Party supported this bill’s referral to a select committee because it is a way of addressing a process that has been going on in this country for a very long time—that is the process of alienation of Maori land. The classic colonising model evolved with the usual impact of bibles and bullets and introduced illnesses played a demoralising part. Starting as early as 1841 in came a whole raft of legislation—and indeed the Native Land Court and the Public Works Act—as some of the legislative mechanisms that either deliberately or consequentially served to deprive Maori of their land resources and possessions. 
The Treaty Resource Centre has a very instructive document on its website listing legislative violations of the Treaty over the years from 1840 through to the early to mid-1990s. That document runs to some four or five A4 pages and it is not a list that should give any cause for celebration or pride to those who are responsible or who have benefited from some of those changes—in fact quite the contrary. The bill we are considering today seeks to make some contribution to reversing a process and to put in place some provisions that undo some of the harm that has been done over generations. 
The point has been made that virtually every report every hearing of the Waitangi Tribunal will contain within it some reference to the effect of the Public Works Act in facilitating the alienation of Maori land—the taking of land from tangata whenua. In some instances compensation was not paid for the land at the time that it was taken. It is interesting to note that in 1908 the Public Works Act first authorised the taking of land by the Crown for public works. At that time Europeans had the right to compensation and the right to appeal but those rights were not applied to Maori land until nearly seven decades later. It was 1974 before that playing field was evened up. It is an indication that there was not a great deal of goodwill even through the 20th century towards putting right the alienation. The success of the campaign to alienate Maori land can be readily seen in the historic numbers. In 1840 Maori had control of some 66 million acres of land and within 12 years by 1852 that had been reduced to some 34 million. Nearly half of the land had been taken by various means. This process went on inexorably it seemed well into the 20th century and even into the 21st century with the foreshore and seabed raupatu in 2004 and the confiscation of that land. 
This bill is clearly not being supported by the Government albeit there is obviously some expression of goodwill towards the principle behind it. But in the interests of restoring justice and some of the material wealth that has been lost it is important that there be a review of the Public Works Act. We support the view of the proposer that in the course of the review consideration ought to be given to inserting a Treaty clause into the Act. There needs to be acknowledgment of the historic injustice done and there need to be some remedies and some mechanisms to remedy those including solatium payments. 
It was quite interesting to note the Land Information New Zealand report to the Local Government and Environment Committee on this matter which dwelt at some length on solatium payments. Clearly officials were quite troubled by the notion and the principle of those payments. The report noted: “Solatium payments and loss of use are subjective economic considerations which would require a highly detailed assessment.” The report goes on to say: “Potentially the former owner of the land or their successor could be compensated twice.” We accept quite happily the first proposition which is the notion of subjectivity. Mana justice and fairness are very subjective notions that need to be established and debated. Value needs to be assigned to them but that ought not to frighten us away from the principle of solatium payments at some point in the future. The second proposition the idea that somehow former owners or their successors would enjoy double compensation is patently wrong in the way it was posed in the report but that is a debate for another day and a topic to be returned to. 
I think the key assurance that the proposer of the bill should reasonably be expected to secure is a genuine commitment from the Government to return to the primary Act in a timely fashion and to undertake the significant review that is called for. There is clearly good will for that; it has been expressed here on all sides of the House. I hope that that will not be lost and that the review will proceed in a timely fashion. The Greens will continue to support this bill acknowledging as we do that there are significant problems—fish-hooks have been referred to—but we support it to inflate the importance of the principle that is underpinning this bill which is the return of land and the compensation for land inappropriately taken for which there was no compensation offered. We think that despite support being given for the principle that has been expressed by Government speakers there is no absolute responsibility on the Government to return to this Act and to have that done sooner rather than later. Kia ora koutou.