Flavell Te Ururoa: Southland Agricultural and Pastoral  Association Empowering Bill — First Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Southland Agricultural and Pastoral  Association Empowering Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5235] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou i tenei po. The Maori Party came to this bill with raised antennae. Would we find that the intention to empower the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Inc. to sell its interests in the Invercargill showgrounds or in any other land it may acquire was really just another metaphor for land confiscation or alienation of the 21st century kind? We were primed to detect the untold story. Would we find the same situation for Ascot Park as we found in the Manawatu with Manfeild Park or in Tairawhiti with Alfred Cox Park? How well informed would mana whenua be of the discussions the decisions and the benefits for the A and P society of selling the land? Would we find a similar situation existed for the people of Murihiku as for Ngati Kauwhata Rongowhakaata and the peoples of Turanga Nui? 
This is not an academic exercise. The collective ownership of whenua and the exercise of customary rights are part of the rights and responsibilities of whanau or hapu membership and are an integral part of the identity and mana of tangata whenua. It is our obligation—it is our honour—to come to this House to exercise the independent Maori voice to defend Maori rights and to advance Maori interests for the benefit of Aotearoa. Yet regrettably the significance of the Treaty relationship is in the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill as in many other bills given little consideration. We stand here today to advise this House again that mana whenua did not know of this issue prior to our contacting them. Kai Tahu had not been consulted or informed as part of the negotiations or as part of the bill’s drafting. That is simply not on. It is an affront to tangata whenua in yet another piece of legislation. 
But there are two very important distinctions that the Maori Party can make in the context of this bill. The first is to be able to publicly commend the initiatives of those key players in local government who do respect the ongoing relationship with the Treaty partner. Our research shows that the Southland local authorities entered into a charter of understanding with Kai Tahu o Murihiku in 1997 to define the processes for Kai Tahu o Murihiku involvement and consultation in matters of resource consent. Subsequent to that charter the Southland District Council jointly with the Gore District Council Environment Southland and Invercargill City Council has funded Te Ao Marama Inc. a business unit established to provide liaison between applicants for resource consents and local runanga. Te Ao Marama has quickly become a one-stop shop for iwi liaison on resource management issues within the rohe. 
The concept of Te Ao Marama is sourced in our korero tawhito; it refers to the process of emerging into light when the separation of Rangi and Papa occurred. Indeed for local government in Southland Te Ao Marama would seem to be part of the new world where tangata whenua interests in resource management—in participating in the four local authorities—are actually facilitated. Te Ao Marama represents four of the papatipu runaka—the tribal councils of Kai Tahu—in the interests of tangata whenua in Southland including matters covered by the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998. However where the issues have a wider Treaty or precedent-setting character the required consultation is with the overall iwi authority Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu. 
The Maori Party is thrilled therefore to be able to say that on paper—and it would appear in practice—the Southland District Council recognises the vital importance of appropriate liaison and consultation with iwi on resource management issues within the district. We know that this liaison has been particularly important since the enactment of the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998. That Act created a number of statutory acknowledgment areas within Southland where Ngai Tahu are recognised as having a special association. Those areas were subsequently identified in the district plan and the council is legally required to consult with Ngai Tahu when applications are received concerning matters in or directly adjacent to those areas. That all looks very good indeed. Members might say: “Ki te whai ao ki te ao marama tihei mauri ora.” 
Given that local precedent of the establishment and experience of Te Ao Marama the Maori Party cannot not understand why it was so hard to consult mana whenua when it came to the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill. Indeed we have learnt that the sponsor of this bill—the local member—even fronted up to a runaka meeting a couple of weeks ago but unfortunately did not mention this issue. 
That is where we get to the second distinction between the provisions of this bill and the situations surrounding Manfeild Park in Manawatu and Alfred Cox Park in Gisborne. For when we the Maori Party contacted mana whenua they confirmed that actually they are happy with the proposed developments outlined in this bill. In line with their long history as entrepreneurs the people of Murihiku are quick to support any initiatives that they consider to be positive for Invercargill and the people. Ever since the first encounters with settlers mana whenua in Murihiku have been active advocates of the local economy. They were instrumental in the flax trade in the whaling industry and in supplying ships with food. True to form they suggested that the more that Ascot Park is used for important occasions the more it helps all the players involved and the local community. So all I can say is this is National’s lucky day. 
But it could easily have been different on many fronts. The Southland A and P showgrounds are endowment land protected by law. Endowment land is gifted for a specific purpose and if no longer required it should be returned to the group that gifted it. Under the terms of the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 iwi are to be given the right of first refusal on Crown land being sold so they are able to purchase it at market rates. Following due process we are able to advise the House that the opinion of mana whenua is that the selling of this land has no effect on the right of first refusal clause. 
We know that with this legislation three conditions must be satisfied. The first is that it appears advantageous to the society to sell the land. The second is that at least two-thirds of the members of the society present at a general meeting have agreed to sell it. The third is that there must have been not less than 14 days’ notice given of the general meeting and the proposal to sell the land was given to members of the society. 
The Maori Party asks the inevitable question: what would have been so hard about having as a key condition to any bill put forward that firstly the people of the land—the mana whenua—were consulted and empowered to participate? There are plenty of precedents for doing so in the rohe of Murihiku. In the health area for example there have been some commitments to a memorandum of understanding between the Southland District Health Board and mana whenua ki Murihiku Te Runanga o Awarua in Bluff Te Runanga o Oraka Aparima in Riverton Waihopai Runaka in Invercargill and Hokonui Runanga in Gore. As part of the spirit of that relationship consultation with mana whenua takes place through Kaitiaki Hauora a committee that comprises Ngai Tahu and local runanga representation along with Southland District Health Board members and management. 
The Maori Party is always disappointed to read statements such as those in the background to this bill that all parties are in agreement that a sale of land should proceed yet to know that “all parties” does not actually mean all. We also know that the faulty processes involved in the pursuit of justice have resulted in one of the Treaty partners having an understanding that “full and final” does not mean full and final as justice is never done when the negotiations are carried out with one partner having to accept the conditions imposed by the other. “All parties” in the context of this bill means Invercargill City Council the A and P association Ascot Park and the business and retail sectors of Invercargill. What about tangata whenua who represent 11.6 percent of the region’s total population? Within that Invercargill City has by far the largest Maori population of the district. 
It is not too hard to follow proper processes. We know that with the show season fast approaching all parties want this matter to be concluded so that the new development can take place. We in the Maori Party also know that another very significant party mana whenua will not stand in the way of the Southland A and P association selling its property and relocating to Ascot Park Raceway. 
The Maori Party supports the passage of this bill in the House and we mihi at the same time to the generosity of mana whenua in supporting such an initiative to take place. Kia ora tatou.