Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill

I am very pleased to speak on this last stage of the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill. Throughout the stages—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The member must move it first, before he moves to the third reading.

I so move.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): And the title.

I move, That the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

💬 Hon Annette King: How long have you been here, Gerry?

I tell you what, Parliament is one of those places where you learn something every day.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: We could give you a list to start on.

You could give me a list, Ruth, but if you were to write out what I do not know, then you would be writing for the rest of your life and would therefore—for perhaps the first time in your life—be gainfully employed.

Can I just say that one of the features of this particular bill has been the speeches that members have made throughout its passage to date. Riccarton Bush is the sort of place that evokes a lot of good feelings from people, because it is unique. The story that goes with it is quite touching in many ways.

Riccarton Bush is a small remnant of the podocarp forest that used to cover most of the Canterbury Plains. It exists because one of the first families to settle in Canterbury, post-European times, were the two Deans brothers James and John Deans. They came to Canterbury, having previously been in the Wairarapa, to look for some land that was suitable for a sheep farming operation. Sadly, James Deans died in a drowning accident, trying to move some sheep to shore, fairly soon after the brothers had come to Canterbury. John laboured on for about another 10 years, I think, setting up the property, before he returned to his native Scotland to marry his fiancée, whom we know as Jane Deans but who was Jane McIlraith. They then came back to New Zealand. He caught what is described as a chill while crossing the isthmus of Panama, and died within about 6 months of them arriving back at Riccarton. So it was really Jane Deans—Jane McIlraith—who did such a splendid job in developing that estate over a period of time, and then her son, John Deans II, after her.

The other point that is useful to note in this is that the Deans brothers became fairly fluent in Te Reo Māori, and the lease they had is to this day recognised by Ngāi Tahu as being a very genuine document. It gave them a leasehold over a radius of 6 miles from the site of Riccarton House today. It was when the European settlement was begun in a big way in 1850 that the property began to be split up, and they eventually took up some holdings in the Malvern Hills. The contribution of that family to Canterbury has been enormous, and it will continue to be so.

The trust today is chaired by Charles Deans, a descendant of the family. The real gem that is there is not the splendid house, which has survived the earthquakes, nor is it the first house, which was built on the Canterbury Plains, nor the oaks that were planted from seed provided by Governor George Grey, but, in fact, the perhaps 1,000-year-old or 1,500-year-old bush that grows there today, just as it once did across most of the Canterbury Plains.

This piece of legislation updates several previous Acts of Parliament that have seen the trust survive since 1914, when the Deans family first gifted the bush to the city; from 1947, when the property was sold at a very reasonable rate—that is, the remaining property—to the city; and then, of course, through the amalgamation period of 1989, when it was put inside Christchurch City but remained as a separate trust entity. This bill protects that. The Christchurch City Council has done a great deal of work in ensuring that that does happen. My association was as a trustee and then chair of the trust for quite some years. We had a good relationship with the Christchurch City Council, which saw proposals to turn the very historic home there into a sort of wine bar and nightclub, instead of the wonderful restored home that it is today. It is a piece of Canterbury’s history, a piece of Canterbury’s heritage, and very well protected because of the work of the trust. So I wish the trust well in the future, commend this bill to the House, thank all MPs who have taken such an interest in it, and look forward to its passage very shortly.

It gives me a lot of pleasure to speak in support of the motion. I want to begin by acknowledging the Hon Gerry Brownlee, the member of Parliament, at the current time, for Ilam, and commend his passion for this Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill, for this area, and, indeed, for his own electorate. I wish to repeat the expression that I used in an earlier part of this debate, which is that I just wish that the Minister, the member of Parliament for Ilam, shared that same passion for heritage buildings in our city, and was able to exude the sort of amazing ability to not only bring this legislation through but ensure that it has support, I think, unanimously across the House. I wish he was able to use those skills in turning his attention to what we have been seeing in Christchurch: the cranes and the bulldozers rolling over beautiful heritage buildings, which, according to engineers’ reports, could be saved. They are being demolished for lack of money and commitment and vision and leadership. I just wish the Minister would turn his attention to that. Perhaps now that this bill is reaching its final stages he might have some spare opportunities to look around our city and help preserve what is left.

I also want to acknowledge, as the Hon Nick Smith did in his prior contribution to this debate, the people who originally looked at Riccarton Bush and said that it is worthy of special protection, the people who first put this into a legislative protective measure and said that it is the sort of vision that they would like to see more of, particularly in Canterbury, at the moment. The trustees of Riccarton Bush, who prepared this bill alongside the legal services team of the Christchurch City Council, also should be acknowledged.

In the scheme of things, this bill is quite small for Parliament to consider. It is not a bill that has had hours and hours and hours of debate, or that has had hundreds of submissions. But, actually, for the people who prepared it—the trustees, the legal services team, and others who are interested and supportive of the cause—they certainly have put a huge amount of effort into it, and I want to acknowledge them.

I also want to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee, which not only considered this bill but, quite properly, at its own effort, came to Christchurch to hear the submissions on the bill. I am very pleased that it did that. There were only two submissions heard. They were both in support, but that is not the point. The committee made the effort to come to Christchurch, and I am very pleased that it gave this bill and the member who has introduced it the respect they deserve by doing that.

There have been some very minor amendments made to this bill through that select committee process, and I think that is a bit of a reflection on the rigour that probably went into its preparation. It is interesting to note that alongside this bill the Local Government and Environment Committee is also looking at the changes that the current Government is pushing on to local authorities by taking out the “four well-beings” in the Local Government Act, and how upset and distressed every single local authority around the country has been at that gutting of the mandate of local authorities. I have sat at the select committee and watched in amazement at the embarrassment of National Party members as mayor after mayor after mayor has come in and complained about it. It is surprising that under the regime of a local authority, the management of a very special piece of bush is sitting alongside the gutting of what local authorities are able to do in terms of the overall economic and social well-being of their district. I wonder how this bill would fit alongside it if it was being considered in terms of the well-beings being taken away from local authorities. I am sure that that has occurred to the select committee as it has considered both of these pieces of legislation.

But the fact remains that this bill is going to be supported by this Parliament, and I am very pleased to have my name put alongside it. I just want to reiterate the point I made earlier that as we are watching protection, deservedly, of a very important part of Canterbury, we are at the very same time seeing the wholesale destruction of much of the heritage of our city, of our region. It is heritage that could be saved if the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery demonstrated the same sort of passion that he has demonstrated in regard to this bush. I know that he has that ability, because he has demonstrated it through this process. I actually think he has probably got the passion for those heritage buildings as well. Perhaps now he will have the time to see that done.

It is particularly frustrating when you see that about $196 million was spent on making Eden Park in Auckland a place that was fit to host the Rugby World Cup. What a great sporting event that was last year. But in Christchurch we have seen less than $10 million from the Government put into supporting the retention, making safe, and repairing of our heritage buildings. It just does not weigh up, in my view. Once those heritage buildings are lost, we cannot recapture them. We cannot suddenly recreate the decades and decades of architectural commitment that we have seen from them over that past time, let alone the emotional commitment that people have to their buildings. We have many that are going. The Lyttelton Tunnel control building is the latest one to have the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority sign-off for demolition. It is one of Peter Beaven’s buildings, one that is not particularly attractive, actually, but that is not the point of architecture; it is what it represents in our time-scale of architectural design and ability and commitment in our region. That is another building that is going to be lost for the sake of just a couple of million dollars.

I am very supportive of this bill. I look forward to that vision and that time now being made by the member for the rest of the historic structures in our region, which are worthy of that same support.

There is much of what Ruth Dyson said about the importance of Riccarton Bush to the heritage of Christchurch and Canterbury with which I agree. That is why the Local Government and Environment Committee unanimously recommended that this Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill, in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee, the member of Parliament for Ilam, have broad support.

I think we should at this stage of the bill’s debate, in the third reading, acknowledge the huge heritage that goes with the Deans family 169 years ago in building the initial buildings that are part of that which is protected, and the step 98 years ago, back in 1914, when it was gifted for the benefit of the people of Christchurch and Canterbury. It is truly a national icon and a treasured area. This bill quite sensibly updates the governance arrangements for that Riccarton Bush area.

I want to join with other members and acknowledge the work of the trustees of Riccarton Bush, and the work that they have put into this bill. I acknowledge that the member of Parliament for Ilam, Gerry Brownlee, is actually a former trustee of Riccarton Bush. I think the—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: And former chairman.

A chair, I am told, of Riccarton Bush. I correct that. I also want to acknowledge that the stand of kahikatea trees that is in Riccarton Bush is a reminder of the forest that once covered the bulk of the Canterbury plains. It is of huge significance as part of the natural heritage. I think that at a time when, tragically, so many Christchurch buildings have been damaged, we all are relieved that those buildings that go back to 1843 in Riccarton Bush, including the homestead, which was built in the 1850s and parts of it in 1900, have been able to survive the earthquake. On those things I agree, and there is consensus.

I do, though, find some of Ruth Dyson’s comments about the broader heritage issues in Christchurch, in respect of the enormous challenge for my colleague Gerry Brownlee around the earthquake recovery, a bit off beam. You see, like so many areas that we see from the Opposition, you would think that the New Zealand Government has a blank cheque. If Labour’s position truly is as Ruth Dyson expresses, and that is that every heritage building in Christchurch is going to be protected and built, then I say—[Interruption] I see the Greens are interjecting. Every single debate we hear in this House you literally would think that money grows on trees. In fact I say to the Green Party—the Green Party actually proposed to print money. I am just pleased that the Hon Gerry Brownlee is not in that camp, that he is realistic and realises there are balancing—

💬 Metiria Turei: You are wrong, wrong, wrong. Wrong.

You are not going to print money?

💬 Hon Members: Wrong.

They are not going to print money. Well, I actually specifically heard the members—the leader of the party—say that they are going to print money to be able to rebuild all the heritage in Christchurch. I would simply say to the Green Party, if the proposals that I have heard that every single piece of heritage in Christchurch can simply be protected by printing money are not—

💬 Phil Twyford: Is that what Ruth Dyson said? Is that what she said?

No, I was referring to the interjection from the Green Party. What I would say to Ruth Dyson, and to the member who has just interjected, is show us the money. Show us the money. If you are going to go around the people of Christchurch and say that you are going to protect—and the latest we have had is the tunnel building at Lyttelton—I simply challenge members opposite, show us how you are going to pay for it. The last thing the people of Christchurch and Canterbury need is the hollow promises from Labour members around heritage.

I want to simply commend the very realistic and practical approach that Gerry Brownlee has taken around that hugely difficult issue of the heritage that we are going to protect, to making buildings safe, and the $6 billion of public money that Gerry Brownlee has secured for the people of Christchurch in the rebuild of that great city. This bill is a sensible bill, which will mean that generations of the people of Christchurch and Canterbury will be able to enjoy both the historic heritage and the natural heritage that is Riccarton Bush. I commend the local member for the work that he has done with this bill, and the trustees of Riccarton Bush, who have put the work into it, and I join with the select committee in saying this is a bill of which Parliament should be proud and that we should get on and pass.

I stand to support the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill. It is a good bill. It is well supported by the House, and I want to thank the member Gerry Brownlee for bringing it here.

The Green Party is pleased to support this bill, the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill, but I join with my colleague Ruth Dyson, the member for Port Hills, in expressing some puzzlement over the way in which the Minister, in a very eloquent speech today, described, with a huge amount of knowledge and enthusiasm and passion, the heritage values of Riccarton Bush, the buildings there, and the forest, and yet he is the same member who called heritage buildings in Christchurch “old dungers” and who, in his role as the Minister responsible for the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, has seen the demolition of much of the heritage character of Christchurch.

So what we are seeing here in this bill is the protection and the retention of Riccarton Bush, Riccarton House, and Deans Cottage, improved governance arrangements for that area, and an improved management plan regime and criteria for Riccarton Bush, but that same care and attention is not being applied to the rest of our heritage character in Christchurch. There we see a very aggressive demolition strategy by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority. It is tragic that we do not have that same stewardship that we are showing and the Riccarton Bush Trust has shown through its trust deed and its care and stewardship of Riccarton Bush given to heritage in Christchurch, because it is not just about the cost in terms of dollars. It was the vision of the Deans family, which set aside the forest and the buildings at Deans Bush for the people of Christchurch. We need to show that same vision in protecting the character of Christchurch, which attracts visitors to the city and which is part of the city’s identity, because by safeguarding that, we safeguard part of the city’s economy. By destroying heritage, we create a wasteland in the city—an expanse of gravel, concrete, and desolation, and a city that has no heart.

We need to show that same care that we are giving to Riccarton Bush to the remaining heritage buildings in the city. If we are talking about money, $10 million has been given to heritage buildings in Christchurch, and half of that to the Arts Centre. Worthy, yes, but we need to increase that pūtea so that we can encourage owners who want to conserve their buildings, like the NG building on Madras Street, which is threatened by the authority’s blueprint for the central city. There are a lot of owners who want to keep their buildings.

The New Zealand Transport Agency needs to be encouraged to protect the Lyttelton Tunnel building. It is using the rockfall risk to say that the building must be demolished. Well, if it is rockfall, why is the State highway and the access to Lyttelton Tunnel not closed to protect people travelling on that road every day?

This is a good bill, but the sentiments of the member who has sponsored it, which are very valuable, need to be reflected and carried over to the protection of our heritage in the city, so that we have a city that has character, that people want to continue to visit, and that has an identity that has been established in part through its heritage buildings.

Deans Bush, with its remnant of kahikatea forest, and the Deans homestead since 1843 have been a very important Christchurch city asset, one of many such assets in Christchurch, that should be preserved for future generations. Its importance is in the bush area itself—the last kahikatea remnant in the built-up area of the city—in the house, with its Victorian wooden architecture, and, of course, in its being an important part of the history of the city, having originally been the Deans homestead. This property has been well cared for, but only since about 1990, using Christchurch City ratepayers’ money, and that needs to continue. This bill, the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill, will see that it does.

Before that the property had been in a bad state and the bush had not been well protected. The early 1990s were the first time that the Christchurch City Council committed the adequate funding necessary for the preservation of this house and grounds, including the bush behind it. As a member of the council from 1989 to 2004, I was one of the councillors who committed voluntarily the funding necessary to make sure that the past regime of neglect all changed, and what we see now is a property that we can all be proud of, despite the current earthquake damage. During the same period I was also a member of the Canterbury Museum trust board, and that building was earthquake-strengthened during the same period, especially the 1872 wing. I recall that it was in a sad state, too. In fact, it was in such a sad state that a good sneeze, let alone an earthquake, would have brought down. So a lot of work and a lot of expense had to be expended to make sure that it was preserved against earthquakes—in particular, much stronger walls. In addition, I set up and chaired a council subcommittee to save the old Government Building behind Cathedral Square. In due course it was purchased by the council for a few hundred thousand dollars. It too was strengthened against earthquakes and the sprinklers added, and then it was resold with protective covenants and is now the Heritage Christchurch hotel.

All these buildings, including Riccarton House, survived the recent earthquakes with minor damage, in stark contrast to other Christchurch heritage buildings, and I would like to mention three of them. First of all, there is the Canterbury Provincial Council Chambers, which for many years was under the wing of the Canterbury Regional Council, which during those years did absolutely nothing whatsoever to strengthen it against earthquakes. The Anglican Cathedral in Cathedral Square, under its ownership by the Anglican Church property trustees, did very little to strengthen that building against earthquakes, even though it had been seriously damaged in previous earthquakes. Obviously, they did not really have the funds necessary for the purpose. The Arts Centre was an ongoing project for earthquake strengthening, and that came from public funds—mainly Christchurch City Council funds, too. We did the work as a council on Riccarton House, the Canterbury Museum, the old Government Building, the Arts Centre, and other such heritage buildings because we knew, as citizens of Christchurch, that that work was needed, and we knew that it was valued by the people of Christchurch and that they would have it for posterity. That work has paid off, as is now evident following the earthquakes. This bill will help to ensure the ongoing maintenance of Riccarton House and Riccarton Bush.

But what about other Christchurch heritage buildings? The Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery has powers and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority has powers under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act to ensure that buildings like Riccarton House are preserved and ultimately restored in whole or in part. Heritage issues are not just the elephant in the earthquake recovery room; they are a herd of mammoths in the room. New Zealand Governments have always been tardy at assisting with earthquake strengthening of heritage buildings, and it is now tardy about recovering and preserving those buildings most needing it. There are many of those. I have asked questions for written answer of the Minister in charge of heritage, and got a worthless, smart-alecky reply, which shows only that he should not be the Minister in charge of heritage because he clearly has not got a skerrick of interest about the subject at all. He would be better to resign. That would be the most positive thing he could do. I understand that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority has a draft policy on heritage buildings for Christchurch, and I understand that the Minister is happy for it now to be released. But why has it not been released, Mr Brownlee? Why has that draft policy not been released? All Christchurch people want to know what the policy of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and the Government is about these buildings. It is high time we found out from the Minister in charge.

This bill is great for Riccarton House, but what about all the others in much more urgent need of attention? In particular, what about the Christchurch Cathedral? Why is that different from Riccarton House? Gerry Brownlee has said in answer to a question for oral answer that it is a matter only for the church, but that is not correct. Like Riccarton Bush and Riccarton House, for which there is a trust board, there is also one for the cathedral. So why no action on the most important building in the city, the Christchurch Cathedral? It obviously can be preserved in whole or in part. The whole Canterbury community contributed to its construction and maintenance, including a lot of council ratepayer funding. The Minister and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority must act now to apply the funding they have to save the cathedral and in due course to see that it is restored at least in part.

I and many other Cantabrians want answers from the Minister on this, not just on Riccarton House. I and many others want to see the 2003 Act that empowers the Anglican Church property trustees and covers the cathedral to be amended, so that in return for Government funding, and in addition to insurance money, donations, and contributions from elsewhere, there would be an Act very much like the bill now under discussion covering Riccarton House, so that the cathedral could then be restored, owned in trusts for future generations, and used as a multi-faith facility and for concerts and other public events. If it works for Riccarton House, it will work for the cathedral. But instead we have heard nothing but silence from the Minister and from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority. It is not good enough. I want to hear now, and the public wants to hear now, what is going to be done. The alternative is for the cathedral to remain in its current trust and for it to be demolished for want of funding—a tragedy for Christchurch, Canterbury, and New Zealand, and an indictment on this Government and this generation as a whole.

Returning finally to the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill now before us, I say that it should obviously be supported. Reservations that New Zealand First had when the bill was first introduced, relating to some aspects of the financial plan, have been solved with the recent amendments to clause 23(3). So with those amendments, New Zealand First is happy to support the bill, but we wait in expectation for what will be done about the real problem in Christchurch: all of those heritage buildings, most particularly the cathedral, for which we have had nothing but silence, silence, and silence, and for which action is now needed.

I rise with pleasure to speak to the third reading of the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill. I have spoken in both the other readings on this bill, and I would like to add to some of the things that I have said, and to add to some of the speakers. The sponsoring member, Gerry Brownlee, has so eloquently set the scene, detailing the colonial history of this family, and I would like to concentrate more on the natural heritage that this gives us in terms of a link to Gondwanaland, which is our link with the ancient past. It is a way of preserving as an open-air plant museum, if you like, a piece of our vegetation and our native heritage that no longer exists anywhere else in this country, let alone in the world, so it must be preserved. I think that the board, in the way that this bill has been drafted and put together, will be able to its job properly.

To me, Riccarton Bush represents the very best of what the original colonial conservators did. These conservators were well ahead of their time. These were people—the Deans family and, in particular, the widow, Jane—who showed a leadership around plants and conservation that we can all learn from still to this day. They decided that they would use in a prudent fashion not only what was available to them to build their houses, to build the buildings that they needed to run a farm, but also to leave the remnants, because this area, as has been said, is a swampy area. It had podocarps in it. The predominant tree was the kahikatea and there was also the mighty tōtara. These are trees that were felled. They were cut down. Kahikatea itself, which is called the white pine, a Dacrycarpus, was used primarily and felled in the tens of thousands of hectares to make butter boxes, to send our butter to Europe. Although that might have been useful at the time, it was a pretty short-sighted thing to do.

The kahikatea, to many of us, is one of the most accessible, I suppose, of our native trees. They retain a beauty and a majesty that is perhaps more accessible than some of the kauri, for example. So when we look at the swampy land in Riccarton Bush, we look at kahikatea, which was one of the few species that would survive in such conditions. Perhaps because it was swampy, the land was left with those trees on it, but that, again, is the cleverness and the forward thinking of the family. The Deans family decided that this was something that needed to be preserved because it was of the land. I would remind people that we have seen in this country of ours a lot of trees and a lot of our native vegetation devastated.

Others have spoken about the colonial heritage, and I am not going to dwell on that, but I am going to talk about the fossil remains of the trees in Riccarton Bush—remains that date back 130 million years. This is an open-air museum that gives us a direct link to our past. It is not very big. It is only 15 acres, and it is the sole remnant of kahikatea flood plain forest, so it is a very significant piece of vegetation, not only for the people of Canterbury but also in the wider context, and, indeed, in the world context. David Bellamy, who had a series of television shows through the 1980s and 1990s, came and filmed in Riccarton Bush. He said that this was a living link with our past that must be preserved in perpetuity.

It is not that we need people to visit us from overseas to tell us how well we are doing, but in that instance I think it did give a lot of confidence to the people of Canterbury that what they were doing, and what Riccarton Bush represented, was entirely significant, and not just to the people of Canterbury in their own area, as the people who visited there since they were children, who had enjoyed going and playing on the trunks of the trees that had been felled, and who had had a good time. Children were allowed to wander there free. It was one of the original parks that was enjoyed by people on their Sunday outings in Christchurch. But further to that, it is an entirely significant piece of vegetation in the international sense. On a programme I used to front, Maggie’s Garden Show, we went back and filmed in Riccarton Bush on many occasions. Again, when you are looking for a place in New Zealand that represents something that we have lost, we come back time and again to Riccarton Bush, because it is such a precious place.

I would have to say that the governance structure of the board does need assistance, and, again, I commend the sponsor of this bill, the Hon Gerry Brownlee. To update the governance arrangements is to carry on that wisdom, that leadership, that foresight that was shown by the original Deans family. These are people who are visionaries, but they need assistance.

I think this cuts across four other bills. It actually brings together and vests in the land at 30 Kahu Road, Christchurch, a very significant group of powers. There are challenges that exist, really, for this board. What this bill would enable it to do is actually make some decisions about how to preserve it in the future, to safeguard it, with management practices that are bold and forward thinking.

Removing native plant species that are not endemic to that piece of land is something that people in Christchurch have struggled with, but Diane Lucas and a lot of other landscape designers have led the charge on this, and at Riccarton Bush they are contemplating it. It would mean the removal of exotic conifers. That is a pretty contentious and controversial thing to do, and many say that it should not be done. But others say it needs to be a pristine piece of bush. So, really, native plant species need to be protected. This legislation will allow that to occur, and I commend it to the House.

I know that it will be passed despite some of the cheaper pot-shots from the people on the other side, who, of course, cannot resist such a thing. But, basically, in the Local Government and Environment Committee there was a unanimous purpose around this bill—

💬 Phil Twyford: Can you blame us? It’s a hell of a target.

—which is not really echoed by the people who comment now, like Mr Twyford, who was never there. He knows nothing about it, but blathers on, as is his wont. I commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I rise to make a brief contribution in support of the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill. May I, as the opposite and other Māori member for the area in question, firstly congratulate the member for Ilam on bringing this bill to the House. I would like to support and congratulate all of the people who have been involved in bringing this bill to the House. I would like to thank the member who has just resumed her seat, Maggie Barry, for the history lesson, and for taking us all the way back to Gondwanaland, “Jurassic Park”, and all the ancient forests that led, as the excellent chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, Tau Henare, would say, to the tapestry, the bringing together, of so many rich histories that are embodied in this special area of Riccarton Bush.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: With such eloquence he should be Speaker.

Very much so. The leading candidate to be the next Speaker is the Hon Tau Henare. So there is a rich history there, and I commend this bill. It is a shame, though, that the bill is being spread over four different Acts of Parliament—or is soon to be four different Acts of Parliament. We have heard members opposite talk about reducing the amount of legislation, and it would have been nice to condense this into one nice and tidy single piece of legislation.

💬 Maggie Barry: That’s what it does. It gets rid of it.

No, it does not get rid of it, unfortunately. It covers four pieces of legislation covering over 98 years. Riccarton Bush is a very special place, as we know. Its history goes back millions of years in terms of its geological and natural beauty, and its historical, and local, and Māori, and colonial history. So I look forward to seeing the passage of this bill through the House, and I commend it to the House. Kia ora.

Bill read a third time.