Turei Metiria: Manfeild Park Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
Turei Metiria: Manfeild Park Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2713] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 First of all I thank Simon Power very much for his comment about the concerns that the Greens raised in the Local Government and Environment Committee. It is very much appreciated. But I think it is really important that the concerns of that hapu are set out for the House. The Greens considered the bill to be relatively simple and were looking forward to it being progressed. We felt confident that the issues the mana whenua had could be resolved constructively but that was not to be the case. We had hoped the bill could be an example of the way that councils and organisations like the Feilding Industrial Agricultural and Pastoral Association and the Manawatu Car Club could work together with mana whenua but that did not happen. We were very saddened and surprised that the select committee facilitated that failure. 
First off let me tell members a story. Around 1876 the land owned by the mana whenua Ngati Kauwhata was leased—this is my understanding from the records—long term to a farmer who owed money to the Bank of New Zealand. Because of the mortgage he had and the provisions of the lease agreement the Bank of New Zealand forced the sale of the land that was leased without the consent of the owners the mana whenua. Despite the mana whenua making numerous requests over the last 100-plus years to various Government departments and the courts and making petitions to Parliaments—all of this on record—the issue of the wrongful taking of the land was not resolved and the land remains alienated from its original owners. Now well over 100 years later that land has changed ownership on numerous occasions and is currently privately owned by the Manawatu District Council the Manawatu Car Club and the Feilding Industrial Agricultural and Pastoral Association. 
Given the history of the land and the fact that it was wrongly taken which is very common in this country and given that the mana whenua have been trying to have the issue resolved in a constructive way for the last 100 years with all of their petitioning in writing—even going so far as to lodge a Wai claim—what might we have expected the hapu to have asked the select committee for? Did they want the land to be returned to them in its entirety without charge to them? No they did not. Did they want the current owners to pay them vast sums of money to compensate them for the loss of profits that they might have had from the use and development of that land over the last 100 years? No they did not. Did they ask to take royalties or rents for future use of the land—the historical taking of which they have been trying to resolve? No they did not. Did they want to have management of the land—to be the decision makers over it and to have the power of veto over any decisions made about the use of it? No they did not. 
All they asked was to be represented on the electoral college that would appoint the trustees who would manage the land. That is all they wanted. They wanted to be part of the overall governance. They did not want a veto and they did not want the chair; they just wanted to be part of the process for the land that was wrongfully taken from them. 
What did the car club the council and the pastoral association say when asked whether the hapu could be on the electoral college? They said no. I asked them why they were disagreeing with such a simple polite and reasonable request but they just did not want those people on that college. I was appalled that the select committee then supported that position by taking the electoral college out of the bill thereby making it impossible for us to deal with the issues constructively. We could have done something about that. It is absolutely astounding that in 2006 this is the state of so-called race relations in this country—that two Maori representatives on a simple electoral college are just two Maori too many.