New Zealand Parliamentary Debate

Gisborne DC (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill [4443]

first and second readings of this bill, we raised the issue of the underlying mutual obligations and responsibilities that the Treaty places on each party. We have talked about Kawanatanga, the Crown's right to make laws and take land in the public interest, balanced with rangatiratanga, the guarantees of protection of Maori ownership of lands.

The Crown guaranteed tino rangatiratanga to tangata whenua: full authority over their lands. Yet in this case, the Crown assumed that Rongowhakaata land was idle land, and that there would be no great shame in using it as a dumping ground for the town's rubbish.

We take the time to raise these issues again, because they must be considered part of the public record. We have not been impressed at the outburst of members such as Moana Mackey and National Party MP Anne Tolley-outbursts that have occurred, seemingly, without a heart for all of the people who stand to be affected by this bill.

This bill was never about the Maori Party. We stood to make our points, simply to do what was required of us in representing the views of our constituency. Our adamant belief is that we must defend Maori rights, and advance Maori interests for the benefit of the nation. This is about the Treaty as a living instrument, an ongoing partnership that provides our foundation as a developing social contract-a contract in which all parties come to the table, able to put forward their views and have their positions heard and their concerns reflected.

Even up until the second reading, that social contract was not in place. There had not been a willingness to meet with the appropriate representatives of Rongowhakaata and Turanga iwi to discuss the implications of this bill. That is all we were asking for- the moral obligation to talk.

We came to this House to ask the question: did the Treaty partners have equal status? Yes or no? If that was so at the time when public submissions were called in July 2005 and closed in December 2005, the record would have shown that the Gisborne District Council made time to discuss the matter with representatives of Rongowhakaata. Active participation, as a partnership principle, is exactly that. It means that local and central government make the effort to engage with whanau, hapu, and iwi.

The tribunal has found that acting reasonably, honourably, and in good faith, requires both Treaty partners to acknowledge each other's respective interests and authority over natural resources. Tribal tino rangatiratanga was compromised, nay sacrificed, by the decision of both the Gisborne District Council and the local MPs to fail to consult-to fail to respect Maori authority, to fail to initiate dialogue, to ignore tangata whenua.

This House is very clear about the significance of protocol as a means of respecting parliamentary business. It would have been helpful if, for this bill, such respect for protocol had also been taken up. The principles of partnership, of active protection- the duty to act reasonably, honourably and in good faith-should have meant the bill was discussed with local iwi in Te Tai Rawhiti. Members of the Maori Party, in our speeches throughout this debate, have offered Anne Tolley an opportunity to revisit the issue and seek an audience with Rongowhakaata and Turanga iwi. We have been informed that the Gisborne District Council has taken up this opportunity, and that there has been an increasing responsibility for proper regard to be had for the impact of the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi as it applies in this bill.

The tribal histories of Te Tai Rawhiti, their determination to protect the place names of significance within their whakapapa-and, in doing so, to honour their tupuna-were worth fighting for. At the end of the day, all that we sought was that the discussion take place. We believe, passionately, in the right of a vibrant Maori society to be actively