Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill

I move, That the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill be now read a first time. It gives me a lot of pleasure to bring before the House an issue that the local community in Southland is unanimous and excited about. I guess a good question is why we have to bring the bill before the House. The answer relates to attractive land that is protected by an endowment provision, as are most of the agricultural and pastoral grounds around New Zealand.

The Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association has been in existence for well over 100 years. It has one of the pre-eminent shows of the country, in that in every sixth year it earns the right to be a royal show. It is one of the agricultural and pastoral shows that continues to serve its community—both the people who are involved in primary production and those who service primary production. It also forms part of an expo to the wider community of Southland. It has a property situated in almost the centre of Invercargill—in Victoria Avenue—that it has held for some considerable time.

People might ask why we have to bring before the House the need to change things, when the Southland A and P showgrounds have been serving the community for so long. It is because several needs now arise that have to be met. The first thing to note is that the A and P showground is a valuable ground; it is situated reasonably centrally—in the city, as I have mentioned. It is asset-rich but not overused. There is an A and P show of 2 days’ duration each year, there are a number of stud fairs—three or four—there are a few equestrian events, and some of the buildings are used from time to time. But, essentially, the building is underutilised and is worth a considerable sum of money. It could also be put to better use—I will say more about that in a moment. I ask members to note that at the appropriate time I intend to move that this bill be sent to the Primary Production Committee after it passes its first reading.

The reason the A and P association wants to move is that it has the sensible option of merging assets with the local Ascot Park Raceway. This will provide an outstanding facility. We have two facilities that are underutilised and overcapitalised in the way of grandstands and facilities, and the common-sense approach is to merge the endeavours of both organisations in order to end up with a first-class facility. It will not only serve these two organisations better but will also provide opportunities for others to be involved in a very much better developed site at Ascot Park.

Members may recall that some years ago an endowment bill was passed to assist the Canterbury A and P showgrounds by merging the Canterbury Agricultural and Pastoral Association’s activities with the Addington saleyards on another site. In that legislation we saw a sensible solution that proposed multiple uses of the same land by different organisations.

This proposal is a similar concept, which needed to be considered. It has been considered, and the community is very enthusiastic about the options. There may be a question as to whether this option will work. The interesting thing about the Ascot Park Raceway is that it is unique in New Zealand. To my knowledge it is the only raceway that embraces all three codes on one site in front of one set of grandstands—gallops, trots, and greyhounds. People working in those codes have shown a willingness to work and make sensible solutions, and the A and P association’s presence will be a very, very important addition to what is already offered.

The A and P association’s plans for developing the site at the Ascot Park Raceway include an equestrian centre. I am told that it will be the best equestrian centre of its type in New Zealand. It is most likely that this will happen, because Invercargill is a city that has shown its ability to develop several first-class sites. It has one of only three covered velodromes in the Southern Hemisphere. It has a first-class swimming pool, a first-class theatre, a first-class stadium—both for rugby and netball—and some other interesting things are on the drawing board.

One of the first things to note is that Southland wants to develop an equestrian centre. That will add considerable value to what the A and P association is doing, not only on its show day but also for equestrian people and organisations around Southland. The centre can and will be used by the Riding for the Disabled Association. A number of related events for all equestrian-type activities will be able to take place at the newly developed centre. It is probably fair to say that the existing showgrounds have some limitations now in the area of parking. That problem will be overcome by the increased parking area available at the Ascot Park Raceway. We have a huge opportunity to develop a first-class facility, in every respect.

One other shortcoming that exists at the showgrounds is that the city itself is constricted by traffic flow. Subject to this bill’s passing—and I ask members to note that a level of urgency is being requested by the purchaser—a developer is to develop a bypass for heavy traffic from the north, down North Road. The traffic normally runs through Dee Street and cuts round in a rather complex roundabout through the city centre, but heavy trucks travel on the road right through to Victoria Avenue. So a bypass will be created a couple of kilometres away that will bypass the city and take traffic through from the north and west through to the Port of Bluff. The reconfiguration of the showgrounds will be an integral part in seeing that happen.

I have mentioned, also, that there are plans to create an industrial estate. Significant interest is now arising in and around businesses, in terms of redeveloping and reconfiguring what they have, in their seeking to re-establish themselves in a better situation in the area now occupied by the showgrounds, which will become an industrial estate.

The House should note that there is a degree of urgency and that this bill needs to be progressed in quite an expeditious manner. I have already mentioned that this bill is to go to the Primary Production Committee, but I ask the House to consider—and I will respond to this matter in my right of reply if there are any difficulties—getting a report back from the committee in 30 days. So at the appropriate time, as I said before, I intend to move the instruction to the Primary Production Committee that the bill will be reported back within 30 days of today’s date. I want the House to consider that request, and I will respond to that matter at the appropriate time.

Can I assure those members who may feel that this bill is being rushed that the consideration on this project has taken some years in Southland. If members would care to look at Appendix C of the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives, they will see that a very prescriptive process has had to be gone through. The community has been consulted and all the requirements have been met according to Appendix C. So we are presenting to the House today a private bill that has been advertised and considered, and the very prescriptive requirements of Appendix C have been fulfilled in every respect. There are no impediments. All sections of the community, including iwi, have been consulted, and there are no difficulties.

All that is required is for the House to sign off this bill concerning land that has been protected by endowment. This is a sensible solution, and it is what the local community wants. I look forward to the House expediting this bill at the earliest opportunity.

I am very happy to rise and support the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill on behalf of the Government. It is a bill introduced by the member for Invercargill, Eric Roy. I am happy to support his initiative, which is clearly endorsed by all the people in Invercargill and the greater area of Southland.

I, too, am quite fond of agricultural and pastoral associations. They go a long way back and are at the heart and soul of rural New Zealand. There will be many people in this country who fondly remember attending shows up and down this country. Candyfloss and hotdogs perhaps were not as readily available back then, but they were found at those shows. There was a huge turnout of the rural sector. Most of the farmers and people brought their stock, and came to see the displays of implements, tractors, stock—you name it.

Those days have moved on, and we now have only a few very successful shows up and down the country. That is a bit of a sad reflection, I guess, on the perhaps more commercial approach that farmers have to life—that it is less community-focused, in reality—and on the lack of realisation, perhaps, by urban people of the importance of farming across the nation. I applaud those groups around the country who battle away and continue to run their shows. It is a wonderful way of promoting the interface between rural and urban New Zealand, and I am sure that Southlanders will continue to do that. Of course, they will now be able to do it, with the passage of this bill—and I am sure it will pass through as quickly as possible—at a single location in Invercargill.

Ascot Park is a wonderful venue. As spokesperson for racing, and as Minister, I visited it very briefly. It is well supported by the people of Invercargill and, as the member who spoke before me, Eric Roy, said, there are not too many places in this country where the three codes—greyhound, harness, and thoroughbred—race together. I would like to see that model replicated more often around the country, because the racing industry, like the agricultural and pastoral associations, forms a proud part of the rural heritage of New Zealand. We want to see those industries prosper, but they are in a new, very competitive world of entertainment options, and they have to make sure they can provide the very best in terms of facilities to attract people and to remain commercially viable. With the sale of this land and the shift to Ascot Park, I guess—but I have not seen the figures—there will be enough money to build first-class facilities. An indoor equestrian arena might be needed on occasions down in Invercargill; on the West Coast we probably occasionally need it, too For the most part, the wonderful climate allows us to enjoy the outdoors, but a roof over our heads at times is welcomed.

It is nice to acknowledge, as I say, not just the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association but the general rural sector, and to be able to pass legislation through this House expeditiously, because the rural sector remains the lifeblood and the core of our economy. It is very pleasing to see that the latest Rabobank survey for farmers and the rural sector—the people who have supported agricultural and pastoral associations up and down this country—shows that the sector has not been so optimistic for a long time. We know that particularly in Southland there has been huge growth in dairy farming, and that is turning back the clock in some ways. The dollar has come back, and one of the things that really encourages me is that the confidence for sheep farmers is the highest it has been since 2000. That, indeed, is very pleasing, because some people have been concerned at the conversion of sheep and beef farms—sheep, in particular—into dairying, and have been concerned that it might be happening too quickly. I think this new round of confidence shown by the survey will mean that farmers can remain in the sheep industry for both wool and meat, and that they will prosper and make good money.

They need to; this economy needs to have a diverse agricultural and horticultural base. We have seen huge growth in dairying but a shrinkage in sheep and beef farming. Perhaps we need to slow that down a little bit, with options for farmers on different land types in different regions, so they can be the most efficient international farmers in their sector of agriculture, using the best land and the best methods available. There are some areas—perhaps, for example, in the dry lands of Canterbury—where some conversions to dairying might have produced better financial benefits long term under a sheep-farming regime. But, anyway, over time I am sure we will probably see the truth, or otherwise, in that.

Once again, I emphasise that if the farming sector is the sector that will support the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association down there, then it will do so very well and with a huge amount of confidence. That will mean that this bill and the changes it allows will result in a wonderful and very beneficial facility, not just for farmers and the farming sector but for the whole of Invercargill and Southland. The Government is very happy to endorse this bill and support it going through the House, as I am sure are most parties in the House. Kia ora.

Kia ora tātou i tēnei pō. The Māori Party came to this bill with raised antennae. Would we find that the intention to empower the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Inc. to sell its interests in the Invercargill showgrounds, or in any other land it may acquire, was really just another metaphor for land confiscation or alienation of the 21st century kind? We were primed to detect the untold story. Would we find the same situation for Ascot Park as we found in the Manawatū with Manfeild Park or in Tairāwhiti with Alfred Cox Park? How well informed would mana whenua be of the discussions, the decisions, and the benefits for the A and P society of selling the land? Would we find a similar situation existed for the people of Murihiku as for Ngāti Kauwhata, Rongowhakaata and the peoples of Tūranga Nui?

This is not an academic exercise. The collective ownership of whenua and the exercise of customary rights are part of the rights and responsibilities of whānau or hapū membership, and are an integral part of the identity and mana of tangata whenua. It is our obligation—it is our honour—to come to this House to exercise the independent Māori voice, to defend Māori rights, and to advance Māori interests, for the benefit of Aotearoa. Yet regrettably, the significance of the Treaty relationship is, in the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill, as in many other bills, given little consideration. We stand here today to advise this House again that mana whenua did not know of this issue prior to our contacting them. Kāi Tahu had not been consulted or informed as part of the negotiations, or as part of the bill’s drafting. That is simply not on. It is an affront to tangata whenua in yet another piece of legislation.

But there are two very important distinctions that the Māori Party can make in the context of this bill. The first is to be able to publicly commend the initiatives of those key players in local government who do respect the ongoing relationship with the Treaty partner. Our research shows that the Southland local authorities entered into a charter of understanding with Kāi Tahu o Murihiku in 1997 to define the processes for Kāi Tahu o Murihiku involvement and consultation in matters of resource consent. Subsequent to that charter, the Southland District Council, jointly with the Gore District Council, Environment Southland, and Invercargill City Council, has funded Te Ao Marama Inc., a business unit established to provide liaison between applicants for resource consents and local rūnanga. Te Ao Marama has quickly become a one-stop shop for iwi liaison on resource management issues within the rohe.

The concept of Te Ao Marama is sourced in our kōrero tawhito; it refers to the process of emerging into light when the separation of Rangi and Papa occurred. Indeed, for local government in Southland, Te Ao Marama would seem to be part of the new world where tangata whenua interests in resource management—in participating in the four local authorities—are actually facilitated. Te Ao Marama represents four of the papatipu rūnaka—the tribal councils of Kāi Tahu—in the interests of tangata whenua in Southland, including matters covered by the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998. However, where the issues have a wider Treaty or precedent-setting character, the required consultation is with the overall iwi authority, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu.

The Māori Party is thrilled therefore to be able to say that on paper—and, it would appear, in practice—the Southland District Council recognises the vital importance of appropriate liaison and consultation with iwi on resource management issues within the district. We know that this liaison has been particularly important since the enactment of the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998. That Act created a number of statutory acknowledgment areas within Southland where Ngāi Tahu are recognised as having a special association. Those areas were subsequently identified in the district plan, and the council is legally required to consult with Ngāi Tahu when applications are received concerning matters in or directly adjacent to those areas. That all looks very good indeed. Members might say: “Ki te whai ao, ki te ao mārama, tihei mauri ora.”

Given that local precedent of the establishment and experience of Te Ao Marama, the Māori Party cannot not understand why it was so hard to consult mana whenua when it came to the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill. Indeed, we have learnt that the sponsor of this bill—the local member—even fronted up to a rūnaka meeting a couple of weeks ago, but unfortunately did not mention this issue.

That is where we get to the second distinction between the provisions of this bill and the situations surrounding Manfeild Park in Manawatū and Alfred Cox Park in Gisborne. For when we, the Māori Party, contacted mana whenua, they confirmed that actually they are happy with the proposed developments outlined in this bill. In line with their long history as entrepreneurs, the people of Murihiku are quick to support any initiatives that they consider to be positive for Invercargill and the people. Ever since the first encounters with settlers, mana whenua in Murihiku have been active advocates of the local economy. They were instrumental in the flax trade, in the whaling industry, and in supplying ships with food. True to form, they suggested that the more that Ascot Park is used for important occasions, the more it helps all the players involved and the local community. So all I can say is this is National’s lucky day.

But it could easily have been different on many fronts. The Southland A and P showgrounds are endowment land protected by law. Endowment land is gifted for a specific purpose and if no longer required, it should be returned to the group that gifted it. Under the terms of the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998, iwi are to be given the right of first refusal on Crown land being sold, so they are able to purchase it at market rates. Following due process, we are able to advise the House that the opinion of mana whenua is that the selling of this land has no effect on the right of first refusal clause.

We know that with this legislation, three conditions must be satisfied. The first is that it appears advantageous to the society to sell the land. The second is that at least two-thirds of the members of the society present at a general meeting have agreed to sell it. The third is that there must have been not less than 14 days’ notice given of the general meeting, and the proposal to sell the land was given to members of the society.

The Māori Party asks the inevitable question: what would have been so hard about having as a key condition to any bill put forward that, firstly, the people of the land—the mana whenua—were consulted and empowered to participate? There are plenty of precedents for doing so in the rohe of Murihiku. In the health area, for example, there have been some commitments to a memorandum of understanding between the Southland District Health Board and mana whenua ki Murihiku, Te Rūnanga o Awarua in Bluff, Te Rūnanga o Ōraka Aparima in Riverton, Waihopai Rūnaka in Invercargill, and Hokonui Rūnanga in Gore. As part of the spirit of that relationship, consultation with mana whenua takes place through Kaitiaki Hauora, a committee that comprises Ngāi Tahu and local rūnanga representation along with Southland District Health Board members and management.

The Māori Party is always disappointed to read statements, such as those in the background to this bill, that all parties are in agreement that a sale of land should proceed, yet to know that “all parties” does not actually mean all. We also know that the faulty processes involved in the pursuit of justice have resulted in one of the Treaty partners having an understanding that “full and final” does not mean full and final, as justice is never done when the negotiations are carried out with one partner having to accept the conditions imposed by the other. “All parties” in the context of this bill means Invercargill City Council, the A and P association, Ascot Park, and the business and retail sectors of Invercargill. What about tangata whenua, who represent 11.6 percent of the region’s total population? Within that, Invercargill City has by far the largest Māori population of the district.

It is not too hard to follow proper processes. We know that with the show season fast approaching, all parties want this matter to be concluded so that the new development can take place. We in the Māori Party also know that another very significant party, mana whenua, will not stand in the way of the Southland A and P association selling its property and relocating to Ascot Park Raceway.

The Māori Party supports the passage of this bill in the House, and we mihi at the same time to the generosity of mana whenua in supporting such an initiative to take place. Kia ora tātou.

It is my pleasure to rise in support of the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill, brought forward for us by Eric Roy. To reiterate Damien O’Connor’s words earlier, Labour supports this bill.

Ascot Park has to be one of the few places in New Zealand that I have not visited for the purposes of going to an active, live race meeting. I have, however, attended another type of meeting there. It is good to see that the codes are all working together on that facility, and it seems that the bill before us will, in fact, make sure that the facility has even better use in the future. I think that bodes very well.

The meeting that I recall there was probably back in the early 1990s when I held a meeting of local stable hands and stud workers to form the Equine Workers Union. If members in the House have never heard of the Equine Workers Union, there is a very good reason why. I am almost too depressed to talk about it, but, fortunately, that union did get off the ground. It went through all the processes of being formed, and even gained the first national award, ever. I was the principal negotiator for that national award for stable hands and stud workers. Unfortunately, the Employment Contracts Act was enacted by the National Government shortly thereafter and that national award was probably one of the shortest-lived in history. So that is a piece of history associated with Ascot Park and the one time I visited there.

This bill tells us the community is behind the project; that there is community enthusiasm for it. In my experience that means the project will work, because when a community is behind something and pushing for its development, then it stands a very good chance of success. It seems to me that this is a win-win situation. It is good to see there is wide support in the House for this bill to go through. But I have to question Eric Roy’s contemplating that the best equestrian centre in New Zealand will be in Southland. I do not want to seem too parochial about the matter, but living right next door to Cambridge I would mount a challenge that the Cambridge area would do very well in terms of equestrian centres. Of course, New Zealand – wide it is something that New Zealand is well-known for and that we do very well as a country. So it is good to see further developments in this area.

I look forward to hearing the report back from the select committee—the Primary Production Committee, if that is where it is headed. I wish the committee well in its deliberations and hope the bill has a quick passage through the House.

I would like to take a right of reply. I thank members for their charitable comments and I particularly appreciate the comments made by Te Ururoa Flavell from the Māori Party. An explanation is probably necessary on my part. The member referred to my having visited the rūnanga of Waihopai. I had an order of the day for quarter of an hour to talk about issues and we spent 45 minutes on Doug Woolerton’s Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill. The meeting got so carried away that all other matters were forgotten and my time expired by over half an hour. So the criticism he made is probably fair.

I confirm the member’s comments about Te Ao Marama. They are a very integral part of the local process of doing things, and nothing escapes them. The bill was advertised accordingly in the newspaper for 2 consecutive weeks. I can furnish a copy of the ad, if the member wishes to see it. As I say, all requirements of appendix C were met, and although there may not have been a specific time, I was set to go and do it but other matters overtook on that occasion. So I give my apologies and thank the member for the consideration given, and the diligent homework done, in regard to that.

When I moved the first reading earlier, I said there was some urgency in the matter. I have discussed this with the chairman, David Carter, and clerk of the Primary Production Committee, which has the time available to progress the bill. We have talked about ways in which the 30-day requirement might be met. Mr Carter has indicated that a subcommittee is prepared to be formed to hear the bill in the next adjournment of the House. Again, no issues have been identified, and I would say that pressure was put on me by the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association to pass this bill through all stages in one day. There has been a discussion at the Business Committee and there is, I think, some degree of unanimity and recognition that there is an element of urgency required, but caution will prevail.

The bill will go to the select committee, it will be advertised, and a subcommittee is prepared to travel to Invercargill, if required, to hear any of those people. We have set in place a mechanism so all of those things can be met in order to say that although this land is endowment land, it is that way for a special reason and we do not take lightly the provision of protection that endowment law provides. However, it is time to move on and do what the community wants, but let us do it in a way in which we know we have ticked off all of the boxes and everybody has an opportunity to express their opinion in favour of or against the proposal. At the moment, to my knowledge, there is 100 percent agreement by everybody for what is a common-sense approach.

Again, I thank the Māori Party for its consideration. I thank Damien O’Connor and Sue Moroney from the Labour Party for their comments, and interestingly they both have an intrinsic and deep interest in the racing industry. It is good that we can see not only the codes of racing working together in Southland but also in the wider community spreading out to equestrian and other events. A very, very logical proposal has been put in place. Sue Moroney referred to the equestrian centres in and around Cambridge, and I agree that that is a recognised breeding stronghold, certainly of the thoroughbred industry, and other horse interests as well. But in terms of what is going to happen with an equestrian centre in Southland, I say: “Watch this space.” The next time the member is in Invercargill she should look not only at Ascot Park, but also at some of the other stunning facilities we have. As I mentioned earlier, we are particularly very proud of the covered velodrome. I thank members for their support.

Bill read a first time.

I move, That the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill be referred to the Primary Production Committee for consideration, and that the committee finally report the bill on or before 7 October 2006.

Motion agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.