Delahunty Catherine: Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Delahunty Catherine: Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 17 June 2009. Volume:655;Page:4425. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena koutou katoa. The Green Party is extremely supportive of the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill. We congratulate the Maori Party on its first member’s bill. We are extremely supportive of the kaupapa that Te Ururoa Flavell has brought to this House. 
It is often said that whatungarongaro te tangata toitu te whenua. People perish but the land remains. In essence the land does remain but thanks to the Public Works Act and a large number of other instruments of colonial rule 96 percent of Aotearoa was removed from tangata whenua to benefit Crown objectives from the mid-1800s to this day. This bill seeks to patch up a jigsaw of justice that will never be complete but each piece has the potential to build a more harmonious picture. 
We have been looking at clause 4 “Purposes”. There are many things in the clause that we feel are very good and we are sure that the select committee process will make them even better. We are a bit confused however in relation to the wording about the first right of refusal for former owners of land taken under the Public Works Act to purchase back the land when the Crown no longer requires it. The Green Party believes that that provision is a little bit mean. A thief or a conman should not be able to come back to the victim many years later and offer to sell back the stolen items at current market rates saying “Here you are; I have brought back your treasure. It has been a bit damaged but it is worth heaps compared with when I stole it from you so now you can pay me at current market rates. But hey you get the first choice!”. I recognise that the bill will not solve all of these problems but at least it makes a start in the right direction. 
I support the comments that the date on which something was taken should be the time when the price is set. Virtually all the reports of the Waitangi Tribunal make reference to the effect of the Public Works Act in facilitating the taking of land from the tangata whenua in Aotearoa. In some instances as clause 4 seeks to redress compensation was not paid at the time. For example there was compulsory acquisition of Ahuriri Lagoon from Ngati Kahungunu back in 1851 and no money was paid. Whatever the land was used for—whether or not it was used for the supposed purpose at the time—we need to give it back and celebrate the clauses in this bill which will give it back with no cost. 
Clause 4(c) is also vital. The descendants of those who were disenfranchised must be recognised and allowed to have their birthright back. Paul Quinn said he could talk for days about the many instances of disenfranchised descendants—and I am sure we all hoped that he would—but I will talk briefly about Hauraki a place where I come from and live. In Hauraki the Maori trust board made a submission to the Local Government Rates Inquiry in May 2007 in which it pointed out that both willingly by gift and unwillingly by the Public Works Act Hauraki Maori have made significant contributions to community infrastructure and facilities such as roads schools churches and halls. Thus Hauraki Maori have contributed to the public good but have very rarely benefited from that public good. They still pay rates but have not received justice yet under the Public Works Act. 
The Green Party supports this bill because it is a way of overturning a process that has been going on in this country for a very long time. First there were the missionary and the musket. Then there were the measles and the flu. Then there were the gunboat and the Native Land Court. And then there were the Public Works Act and many of its unpleasant legal colleagues. This bill is a good start in terms of overcoming that process. 
I will also talk about another example that is dear to my heart: Tai Rawhiti Turanganui a Kiwa. I went to the Turanganui a Kiwa claim. On the last day of the claim I was the only Pakeha in the room who was not a lawyer. One of the problems we have with this situation is that so few Pakeha have engaged seriously in understanding what has gone on in the removal of the rights of Maori because they do not attend or participate in processes that are about Te Tiriti o Waitangi and about justice for all of us not just justice for Maori. Let us take Watson Park a sportsground in the middle of Gisborne. Watson Park is the whenua of Rongowhakaata. It was taken by the Crown for a Pakeha cemetery for Gisborne City. It was then not used for a cemetery; it was used as a rubbish dump then as a playground and sportsground and now the Gisborne District Council would like to toss it back to tangata whenua to Rongowhakaata but at market rates. 
We need these sorts of bills to redress these issues and I hope the select committee will make this bill even stronger. We support the bill’s purposes. We vote for this bill as another step towards reconciliation plus resources which together become a recipe for justice. Tena koutou katoa.