Flavell Te Ururoa: Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 17 June 2009. Volume:655;Page:4418. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I move  
That the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee. This is an issue that has been at the heart of dealings between whanau hapu local government and public entities. This bill—[ 
Interruption 
] 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that we have just had a personal vote and that people are moving around but because this bill is very important to my heart and my soul I would appreciate it if members could move quickly so that I can deliver the sort of speech that will make my people—in particular our Maori Party—proud this evening. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I think the member’s point of order has had the desired effect. He has the attention of the House. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: This bill is the first that we as the Maori Party have prepared and finally seen in the House under our own banner—i a! The bill was drawn up after the Foreshore and Seabed Act (Repeal) Bill which as we know has been set in abeyance while it is considered by a review panel. This bill arriving here tonight is a significant event for our party so I acknowledge all of those in our team who have given advice especially Judge Heta Hingston the former judge of the Maori Land Court. 
If one were to ask the purpose of this bill one can read in the explanatory note that it is “to ensure that former owners of Maori or general land taken or acquired by the Crown for the purposes of a public work are given the first right of refusal to purchase that land where the Crown no longer requires it for the public work for which it was originally taken and/or acquired.” The bill covers a complex area which none the less has had a long-lasting impact on our whanau hapu and iwi and indeed on many New Zealanders. In essence we are talking about people who have borne the cost of the land being taken by either so-called agreement or compulsion. 
I say for those who do not know that the origins of the 1981 Public Works Act emerged out of English law. The 1882 and 1928 Public Works Acts were the road maps to developing the infrastructure of what the colonists thought was their new country. There have been numerous claims to the Waitangi Tribunal resulting from the historical use of public works legislation to dispossess Maori of their land. Agents of the Crown have endeavoured throughout the years to come to grips with the problems of land taken under the Public Works Act and no longer used for the purpose for which it was taken. The last big round of consultation was held throughout 2001 and resulted in a series of policy options that appear to have been “deferred” or filed away in the back drawer. This is an issue then that has been parked for many years yet an issue that has never ever been resolved. 
When this bill was drawn from the ballot in July 2007 it became obvious within hours that the acquisition of land under the Public Works Act was still a hotly contested issue. We heard about two blocks of land on Panepane Point on Matakana Island in the Tauranga area that are currently owned by the Western Bay of Plenty District Council which acquired the land through the Act. We heard about a maze of paper roads that run through Te Urewera. We learnt about the impact of the legislation on the whanau associated with the Paraparaumu Airport lands Te Whanau a Te Ngarara Inc. The airport land was taken by the Government under the Public Works Act to build a Second World War aerodrome. It was then sold to private interests by tender with the tender limited to people participating in the aviation industry for goodness’ sake! 
At home in Rotorua we had the same concerns when in the early 1960s about 81 hectares of the hapu land that was the paramount tribal settlement of Ngati Uenukukopako was taken under the Public Works Act for the establishment of an aerodrome. Claimants from Ngati Turangitukua have asked for the mandatory return of land that the Crown took under the Public Works Act in order to develop the town of Turangi in the 1960s. There has been a call from the New Plymouth hapu Ngati Te Whiti against plans for council-owned land near the Te Henui cemetery. Ngati Te Whiti Ahika have petitioned the New Plymouth District Council that the site is ancestral land and should be returned to the tangata whenua. There is also the case of the land overlooking the harbour at Te Atatu. The land was acquired by the Auckland Harbour Board in the 1950s under the Public Works Act for development as a deepwater port. The Waitakere City Council set aside part of the land for a marae project in 2002 but the actual site is encompassed within land that the original descendants of that whenua believe should have been offered back in the 1990s to the original owners. 
Further north near Moerewa there is the case of Orauta School which was established on Crown land reserved for Maori school use. In 2005 an occupation was held by local Maori who stated that Maori had a right to the school’s occupation and use for educational purposes as gazetted in 1940 when the land was taken under the Public Works Act for a native school. At that point the Ministry of Education decided to offer back the land to its original owners a move that we warmly welcomed but that is not necessarily universally applied. 
In my own tribal nation of Ngati Rangiwewehi in Rotorua the Public Works Act is a sore point—firstly because it took land; and secondly because in taking the land it fenced off our people from a key piece of our history. Taniwha Springs is a reference to our taniwha Pekehaua our kaitiaki and our guardian. Fresh water gushes from his lair; that place just happens to be on the land that was subsequently taken in 1966 by the public works legislation. Taking the land allowed for access to water to feed the township of Rotorua but nothing went back to our people. 
These examples are just some of the many examples of land that was taken under the Public Works Act for a specific purpose and is no longer used for that purpose. The examples show the distaste many people have for this Act. Of course it is not only Maori who have suffered from this policy. I give a case in point: the  
Independent Financial Review 
 on 1 December 2006 reported a case involving a Pakeha family—the Lambie family in Auckland to be precise—who had their farmland compulsorily taken by Auckland International Airport in the 1970s. The crux of this matter is that whether the land was confiscated or taken under the Public Works Act the original owners want their land returned whether it is private or Government-owned land. This bill then attempts to respond to these longstanding grievances. 
Regarding the types of arrangement for the offer back of and payment of compensation for acquired land to Maori there are some strong recommendations from both the submissions in the  
Review of the Public Works Act 
 and the Waitangi Tribunal. In the 2001 review Maori wanted land to be offered back in all cases preferably at less than the current market value or at no cost. There was also a call for compensation because with that land the acquiring authorities had also acquired the benefit of that land use. We expected that the Crown would act in good faith be well informed and redress any grievances in a timely manner but as the history record proves the Crown has failed to respect Treaty interests and in doing so has neglected the need to recognise and protect the rangatiratanga of the claimants who have been affected by the legislation. 
The explanatory note goes on to state: “The Bill also provides for solatium payments to be made for loss of land and/or opportunities associated with the use of that land where land was acquired or alienated for a public works use for which it was not actually used. Where the former owners of the land are deceased these rights may be exercised by their descendants.” The fact that the land is offered back generally at market value is often inappropriate when land has been acquired for many years and has appreciated considerably. Although the nature of any improvement of the land might be assessed at current market value we know that many claimants have recommended that a base value of the land be taken as at the date of its being taken. This is particularly so where breaches of the Treaty have occurred in relation to original takings which should be a mandatory consideration in the assessment of the value. 
Usually land has been developed for the public good and generally the community has benefited. Yet despite making this contribution Maori have missed out on the opportunity for development of their land and then have had to try to purchase the land at the current value which has increased due to the developments by others around the land itself. There are many instances where land has been sold to the Crown for a specific purpose and only for that purpose. This bill according to the explanatory note “proposes land sold to the Crown should be offered back to the original owners and/or their descendants.” It is also proposed that the land taken under the Public Works Act and no longer used for the purpose for which it was acquired not be land banked to settle Treaty of Waitangi claims. The Public Works Act has been responsible for a vast amount of State acquisition of Maori land. Indeed some would call that the State-sponsored theft of tribal whenua. Every opportunity should be taken to return this land to the original owners if the public purpose has expired. 
In closing I and the Maori Party would like to thank in advance all of the parties in the House for their—I am sure—support for this particular bill and for the opportunity that will come with its going to public submission and through the parliamentary process. I very much appreciate the support given by members to the bill. Tena tatou katoa.