Harawira Hone: Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Harawira Hone: Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:9603] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 The Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill raises a few issues for us as the Maori Party. One issue of course is the compulsory acquisition of private land which is an issue made hugely important to Maori and to the Maori Party by the previous Labour Government passing legislation to get its hands on great swathes of the foreshore and seabed because it could not get it through the court system. That legislation was described by a Government review committee as the single biggest land nationalisation statute enacted in New Zealand history. 
According to various sources there are about 12500 foreshore and seabed parcels in private ownership and about 30 percent of land adjacent to the foreshore is privately owned as well. There are about 2000 kilometres held by Maori interests and about 4000 kilometres in non-Maori hands. During the review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act one of the three commissioners Kai Tahu educator Hana O’Regan said that the issue of private land was a mess often leading to people being misinformed of their rights. She said recently that “There is a huge dearth of knowledge and a high level of ignorance in coastal communities over what their rights are. We found huge tracts of land that were inaccessible because they are in private land ownership and it wasn’t Maori ownership.” Hopefully this bill will be the opportunity to finally investigate why non-Maori private land has historically bypassed the legal scrutiny and examination always visited upon lands held by Maori. 
Another area that we question is the definition of the words “necessary” “appropriate” and “in the public interest” when referring to projects. For example is it right to call the Transmission Gully project “necessary” or even “appropriate” when there are other options and deep questions are yet to be answered? 
By the same token should we define the term “in the public interest” along the same lines as the expectations outlined under the Public Works Act? If we do then we need to note the numerous claims to the Waitangi Tribunal resulting from the historic use of public works legislation to dispossess Maori of their land. One such case is Whaingaroa in Raglan. It was taken from the Maori owners during the Second World War for use as an airfield—which was never built—and then handed off to Pakeha afterwards for a golf course. Takaparawhau or Bastion Point was taken under various guises such as defence purposes and was not given back. Watson Park in Gisborne was taken from Rongowhakaata for the purposes of a cemetery and was not used for that purpose. Closer to home lands at Paraparaumu were taken from the original owners under the Public Works Act for the purposes of an airfield at the outbreak of war but were never returned when the war ended. 
My colleague Te Ururoa “Mike Tyson” Flavell has put forward the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill which would require the original owners—Maori or Pakeha—to be given the right of first refusal to purchase land taken but no longer needed for public works. 
We will be watching the progress of the Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill to ensure that the interest of the public includes the interest of mana whenua the people of the land taken. We have questions about this bill but we will support its first reading to enable the issues to be raised and the questions to be asked and hopefully answered. Kia ora tatou.