Katene Rahui: Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Katene Rahui: Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 21 July 2010. Volume:665;Page:12569. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 It seems entirely fitting as MP for Te Tai Tonga to have the last word in this debate on the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill. I want to take us back to the words of the Waitangi Tribunal in 1991. The report began with the now historic statement: “The narrative that follows will not lie comfortably on the conscience of this nation just as the outstanding grievances of Ngai Tahu have for so long troubled that tribe and compelled them time and again to seek justice.” The Tribunal acknowledged Ngai Tahu’s generosity to the nation and noted that “Ngai Tahu have not objected to giving up their lands when they were satisfied that this was for the public good. They are however well justified in objecting to the Crown’s failure to return such land once that public interest has been served … To be consistent with the obligation to protect Ngai Tahu’s rangatiratanga over their lands we feel that the tribe’s continuing interest in lands devoted to the public good should be recognised by the Crown.” 
When Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu presented to the Local Government and Environment Committee it was no doubt the weight of these words and the legacy of this history that led them to their deliberations. The runanga fully supported the intent of the bill but suggested that the bill does not go far enough. I acknowledge my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell for his determination his vision and his steadfast endeavour to ensure that no more Maori land will be taken by the Public Works Act. 
I have been sitting in the Chamber this afternoon listening to the speeches made by the members who have spoken on this bill and I have to say that I am extremely disappointed in the attitude that has been taken. Members said that the further we got into this bill the more unintended consequences we saw. They said that it was impractical that there were huge compliance costs that it was difficult to deal with in the public good and so on and so forth. 
I will give a little bit of history to the House. I am from Te Wai Pounamu. I am Ngati Koata from Te Tau Ihu; I am Ngai Tahu from Te Wai Pounamu. The Te Tau Ihu claims report has been published and I will read to the House one of the quotes from that report. It was a quote from my auntie Puhanga Patricia Tupaea. She said: “Auntie Maria Tuo Hippolite (who was my grandmother) gave me the korero about the land we lost to the Crown. She had said that we had been promised free health free education and jobs in return for letting those settlers come and live on our land and that we would participate not be excluded; that our mana would be respected. I feel great grief at the loss of our land and at the loss of our Treaty relationship. We have always acknowledged that the Pakeha European had great benefit to bring. We were and are willing to welcome them among us and share what we had but not to have our mana customs and laws disregarded and our land and resources taken. These must be restored and rangatiratanga recognised so that the partnership will resume on the right footing. Pakeha had a lot to offer us but we didn’t invite them amongst us to become our masters.” 
I will tell the House a little bit about the Te Tau Ihu claims. One of those claims is about the Nelson tenths. With tenths what normally happens is the Crown buys 10 sections nine are sold and one goes back to Maori. In the Nelson tenths 10 sections were sold. Then another one was taken—not out of the 10; it was another one—and given back to Maori. So in fact Maori got elevenths. But the taking did not end there. Once that tenth—or eleventh as it actually was—was put into a reserve the land kept being taken. In one particular case the report stated: “The Crown took land from the estate for public works in circumstances where it could have limited its taking to the leasehold and quite frequently where the work was not essential in the national interest nor was it essential that it be trust land that was used.” This is talking about public works. 
I also quote from a Waitangi Tribunal report called “Public Works Takings of Maori Land in the ‘New Zealand 
Gazette’ ”. It states: “The definition of what constitutes a public work has widened over the years … The  
Gazettes 
 in the 1880s indicate that there were a number of major road lines and railways in construction that involved the taking of Maori land … Roads and railways however only constitute some of what was taken under the label public works. The sheer variety of purposes that land was taken for shows the very broad definition that ‘public work’ has had in New Zealand legislative history. The following list of the public purposes that Maori land was taken for and proclaimed in the  
Gazettes 
 illustrates the wide domain of the Crown’s powers to take land for public purposes: lighthouses gravel-pits police stations hospitals scenery preservation school sites native schools electric lighting wharf sites cemeteries landing reserves stock paddocks post offices drainage systems courthouse sites public buildings internal communications between lakes Rotomahana and Tarawera a station for collecting rainbow trout ova the construction of beacons and leading lights model kaainga waterworks magazine reserves abattoirs bridges recreation grounds historic purposes pilot and signal stations travellers’ accommodation public health purposes and defence works. This demonstrates the immense variety of purposes for which land could be taken as a public work.” 
I will also talk about public works as spoken about in the  
Ngai Tahu Ancillary Claims Report 1995 
. The Waitangi Tribunal said: “We turn now to discuss the manner in which the tribe’s reserves have been taken for public works purposes such as defence roading railways scenic preservation and recreation as this has been a dominant issue in the ancillary claims.” It goes on to state that many times the lands were taken without notification to the owners—in fact the only notification was in the  
Gazette 
 when it was gazetted. The owners did not even know that their land had been taken from them. 
“As important as the issue of notification is the Crown’s failure to return lands which are no longer required for the purpose for which they were originally acquired. A striking example of this was the acquisition of some 592 acres in 1964”—this is 1964 not 1864—“for the television transmitter site at Hedgehope. Less than one-sixteenth of the land so taken was required for the purpose. Rather than returning the surplus area it was leased out for grazing and then set apart as State forest.” I wanted to point this case out because when members talk about how inconvenient this bill has been or could be I get really angry and I am sure that other Maori around the country are just as angry. Members are talking about our land. Members are talking about our history. It was taken; it was not given back—592 acres were taken for one television transmitter. It is grossly unfair and the fact that it has not been returned is an even bigger issue of fairness. 
People say that there are other forums that we can go to in order to get redress for this issue—they are talking about the Waitangi Tribunal; they are talking about direct negotiations—but the truth is that all we will get back is 1 percent of the value of what was taken from us. Even then there are letters to the paper and the public moans about it such as a letter that I read in the  
Press 
 just the other day saying that Maori were on the Treaty gravy train again. We are being made out to be the bad guys. I think it is grossly unfair that the members are not allowing this bill to go any further and I have to say that we will not be stopping here. Kia ora.