Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill

I move, That the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill be now read a second time. The Waitaki District Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill considers three pieces of land in the Waitaki district, those being in the town of Ōāmaru. The purpose of this local bill is to revoke the reserve status of the Palmerston Showgrounds, to revoke the reserve status of land in Witham Street in Ōāmaru, and to clarify the status of land known as Lookout Point or Forrester Heights.

The first two matters in the bill are straightforward. The bill revokes the reservation of the Palmerston Showgrounds land under the Reserves Act 1977 and vests ownership of the land in the Waitaki District Council. The council had thought it owned the land, and entered into a sale and purchase agreement with the current lessees. When the ownership is vested in the council with the passage of this bill, the council can then sell the property. This is an issue that might well make the junior whip across the House yawn with boredom, but I can assure that member that to those people who live at the Palmerston Showgrounds this is a matter that is actually quite important to them, and so to—

💬 Grant Robertson: Senior whip.

Oh, I am sorry, it is the senior whip. Well, you would never know to look at him, would you?

The second item in this bill is the second parcel of land—which, again, the council thought it owned, so it was a mistake on the behalf of the local authority—in Witham Street, in about the centre of Ōāmaru, and not too far away from where we live, by the way. The council sold the land to the current occupants. The council wishes to put right this mistake and to be able to vest ownership of the property in the current proprietors. Again, when I meet those people, as I do occasionally when I am out buying bread, they ask how the bill is coming along, because it is something that they are a bit anxious about. They really would like to have the status of the land where their home is and where they live clarified. So those are the first two issues brought with the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill.

Thirdly, the council wishes to clarify the status of Lookout Point, which is also known as Forrester Heights. For those people who have been to Ōāmaru, Lookout Point is the beautiful piece of land to the south. You look down and you see Ōāmaru Harbour, Ōāmaru out to Pukeuri, out to the north, spread out before you. It is truly a beautiful part of Ōāmaru, and a very nice part of the town on a beautiful piece of land.

The land was originally purchased by the Government from Ngāi Tahu as part of the Kemp purchase. That parcel of land now known as Forrester Heights was included in the original subdivision of the town of Ōāmaru back in the 1900s. The land was set aside in 1885. Under a Gazette notice in 1885, it was “ ‘reserved for the purpose’ of an endowment in aid of the funds of the Oamaru Borough Council.” Although the junior whip for the Opposition may yawn at this point, this is actually quite pertinent to this bill, and it does matter to a lot of people—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Senior whip.

Oh, senior whip? Are you sure? He is? Oh, OK. The confusion has been whether the word “reserve” relates to whether the land has been designated a reserve under the Reserves Act, or whether “reserve” means set apart—

💬 Chris Hipkins: How are Jemima and Big Ted?

—I know I am probably speaking too quickly for the whip, but, anyway, we will box on.

The Local Government and Environment Committee received extensive advice on this very point. Based on the evidence presented to us by submitters—and we received some quite extensive submissions on this point from a number of submitters, and I want to thank them for the work they did on this bill—and also the advice the committee received from officials, the committee concluded that Lookout Point is not a reserve, and confirmed it as being vested as an endowment in the council in aid of borough funds.

It is interesting to note that this issue was also canvassed by the Primary Production Committee as part of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill, in clauses 18 to 20. In its select committee report, the committee noted that Land Information New Zealand and the Department of Conservation, which both have an interest in this, had reviewed their records, and they were satisfied that treating Lookout Point as a reserve was—and I will quote from the report, because I think it adds weight to the decision of the committee—“a genuine mistake, resulting from the various meanings and legal uses of the word ‘reserve’.” So it has been the most terrible tangle, and it has certainly tied up the local community for a number of years.

The Local Government and Environment Committee received a number of submissions on the Forrester Heights part of the bill. There were around six or seven submissions in favour and 10 against this particular provision in the bill. There were no submissions against the first two provisions that I outlined, but there was certainly more controversy around this third provision.

Also, I want to take time to thank all those submitters who took the time to join us by teleconference, to travel to Wellington, or to write in with their submissions and very helpful photos and documentation in aid of their submission. I can assure them that the committee looked at each and every submission and argued—as committees do—over every point raised. I am happy with the conclusion that the committee came to. A number of those submitters focused on the status of Forrester Heights, on its status as reserve land or otherwise, and a number of submissions and submitters focused on the past, present, and future potential uses of the land known as Forrester Heights.

I want to cover now matters that were not considered as part of the bill. Any proposed use of the land is a matter for the Waitaki District Council and is out of the scope of this bill. I do not propose to tell the local authority what to do with the land. It is not the job of Parliament to do that, and it is out of the scope of this Waitaki bill. Whether the land has been used, perhaps wrongly or rightly, as a public reserve since the 1890s, whether the land has under-runners and is prone to movement or not, or whether the land should or should not be subdivided and sold is not the business of the Local Government and Environment Committee, and, indeed, is not the business of Parliament. I am firmly of the view that through this bill Parliament has been asked to clarify the status of the land, and it has been asked to do only that. It is for the local authority, together with the local community, to decide any use that the land might be put to in the future.

I am very happy to bring this bill to the House on behalf of the Waitaki District Council. This has been a difficult and longstanding issue for the Ōāmaru community. I was pleased to hear the Waitaki District Mayor, Alex Familton, tell the committee during his submission that whatever the outcome of this bill, whatever the status of the land, he would put any future use of that land back to the community. I applaud him for that. I commend the bill to the House.

The Labour Party supported the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee, because we were interested in hearing the submissions and looking at the evidence that was to be provided in terms of three pieces of land that were being covered by this bill. The reason we wanted to look at it closely was that for the first two pieces of land that Jacqui Dean has mentioned—the Palmerston Showgrounds and another lot in Ōāmaru—there is little or no controversy at all, but the third piece of land, called Lookout Point, in Ōāmaru, has been controversial. So we wanted to go to the select committee, to hear the evidence, and to see whether this particular piece of land was land held in reserve or land that had been endowed to Ōāmaru Borough Council, and, therefore, could be used in the way that it wanted. We went along with an open mind, wanting to hear what would be said.

There were not a lot of submissions on this bill, but there were two significant submissions that I want to mention—one from Mr Warren Crawford and one from Mr Barry Monks. They had done a lot of work around this land at Lookout Point, because they were firmly of the view that this land had been made reserve land back in the 19th century. They believed that this land was not the council’s to be able to dispose of in any way at all, and that it needed to be kept in reserve for the people of Ōāmaru. So in many ways, this bill has been quite a difficult one. In fairness to the select committee and the members on it, we were seeking the confirmation that this land could be sold, could be subdivided, and could have done to it whatever Waitaki District Council wanted to do with it. I have to say that we made a genuine attempt to get all the information that we could. The bottom line is that I believe that what we were provided with, after long deliberation and a very extensive search by legal people, is that the council does have this land as endowment land; the land does not have a reserve over it.

I can see why it was confusing. Evidently, there was a bill that had been presented to this House that was to, in effect, make it reserve land, but it was never passed. On that basis, many of those who have been worried about this land were basing their evidence on a bill that was never passed in this Parliament. I do want to commend those two submitters, who set out to get as much information for the select committee as they could, particularly Mr Barry Monks. It was Barry Monks’ submission, in my view, where he presented a lot of evidence and lot of old documents that he had found himself, that made us go and ask the officials to go back and search the records again. It was Barry Monks’ submission that really made us have that rethink. I commend him for that, because he was able to provide documents we had not seen before.

In fact, if you look at the whole issue around the gathering of documents, I think it was rather unfortunate because there were documents that were missing. There were documents that they had found that they had got from libraries and so on, and when they went back to get further documents they found that they had been removed—in fact, even cut out of old records, which makes people very suspicious. What is going on when you cannot find documents, and when documents that were there have since been removed from the database? And so we went through, I think, very thoroughly, looking to see the status of this land. I think it would have been better for all the people of Ōāmaru if the council had consulted better, and we did raise this issue with it around its consultation. It was not good, and it has left people very suspicious of its motives.

It has also, I think, meant that people believed that the council was interested only in hocking off this bit of land so that it could have money to restore its opera house. And there was concern that because the local member, Jacqui Dean, had been very supportive of the opera house, somehow she was in league with the council and there was some sort of conspiracy around this.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: No, surely not.

I am not saying, Mr Auchinvole, that that is what we believe, but because of the poor consultation, because of the process, and because of missing documents and a lack of clarity, people were, rightly, left with that impression. That is why it was important that we did thorough work on establishing the legality of this land. Is it a reserve? Was it endowment land? I have to say on behalf of the Labour Party that we are satisfied that this is endowment land that the council can dispose of.

We then get to the point of what it wants to dispose of it for. Some of the submissions raised the point that this particular piece of land is pretty unstable. In fact, there have been slips up there. They gave us photographs showing that this land was not stable and asked how this could be used for a subdivision. That is something that the council has to work out, and it is not our job to decide whether land is stable or not, but that was an issue that was raised. I am pleased that a number of my colleagues took the time out to actually go to Lookout Point. I have got two of my colleagues who are sitting here very interested. In fact, Mr Twyford is going to speak on this bill. He made a special trip to go and look at the land itself and to meet with those who were concerned, and so did Damien O’Connor. As good Opposition members of Parliament—sorry, I forgot a third person. David Clark from Dunedin also showed great interest. So we had three Labour members of Parliament, which is probably more than the National Party. Jacqui Dean has no doubt been there, but I am not sure whether the rest of the National members even know about it. But I do know we were prepared to uncover every stone in search of what the appropriate designation is for this land. In my view, we have reached the point where we are satisfied.

There is one irony I do want to point out, though. If this land is subdivided and sold for the restoration of the opera house by the council, the irony is we have a bill before this Parliament, a local government amendment bill, amending the Local Government Act 2002, which says that the councils should be involved in only things that councils can be involved in. You would have to say: is the use of the money from this land appropriate for the restoration of an opera house under the Government’s definition of the purpose of local government? We would say yes. We believe that it is. If the community wants it, if it has consulted with the community, if it is a community decision, then that would be appropriate. However, under National’s Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill, it would not be, because surely an opera house could be provided by the private sector. So there is this sort of—is it a schizophrenic approach? Maybe it is the hypocrisy approach to local government, wanting the money from this land to put into an opera house for a council that is being told that that is not really the sort of thing that it ought to be involved in.

We do support this bill in the second reading and will support it throughout its stages because I believe the hard work was done on this particular piece of land, Lookout Point. It was the controversial part of the bill, and I think the select committee, ably chaired by the member from Christchurch Central, resolved the issues satisfactorily.

I am very pleased to speak on the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. The first thing I would like to do is acknowledge the excellent local member, Jacqui Dean, and the huge amount of work that she has done to ensure that this bill is taken through Parliament. She is a great local member. I did hear in some of the other speeches—and I want to just address this—that some members have gone to the beautiful place of Ōāmaru to do their own research. I think that is a great thing if a piece of legislation is going through the House. Not all other members on this side have been able to do that, but we have so much confidence in our local member, Jacqui Dean, and the work that she has done over several years, that we did not necessarily need to visit, and I do look forward to visiting in the near future.

I also would like to acknowledge the very competent chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, Nicky Wagner, who has worked tirelessly as well with the local member, Jacqui Dean, on this bill.

As has already been mentioned, this bill deals with several provisions around land. One of them was more controversial, as has already been mentioned. The less controversial ones were the Palmerston Showgrounds and the lot 1 ones, which were more straightforward because they are a revocation of the land’s Reserves Act status. In the case of the Palmerston Showgrounds land, the bill will allow the Waitaki District Council to sell the land to the current lessees. In the case of the lot 1 section, the bill will allow the Waitaki District Council to regularise the sale of the section to the current registered proprietors, and will allow title to their property to be unencumbered by any notation relating to the Reserves Act.

When we get to the key area that has been the subject of many of the submissions that we have received, Lookout Point, I think it is important to reiterate what has been mentioned by both the member Jacqui Dean and the Hon Annette King, and that is that in all of the submissions you can see the huge amount of work that many people have gone into to ensure that the research happened. If we just go back through the history here of Lookout Point, there was a very, very clear disagreement, or misunderstanding, or confusion, if you like, that needed to be resolved. The particular issue with regard to Lookout Point was that an administrative oversight in 1937 had mistakenly vested the land in what was then the Ōāmaru Borough Council as a reserve. Reserve status and endowment status are two completely separate concepts, and this was not fully appreciated in 1937.

We discussed this at length at the Local Government and Environment Committee. I want to pay tribute at the moment to the huge amount of work done as well—it was not just by local people in Ōāmaru—by Land Information New Zealand, Ngāi Tahu, the Department of Conservation, the Commissioner of Crown Lands, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. As to what came back, there is a very clear statement from our report, because I think it does resolve this longstanding issue, after lots of research by the community, and all Government agencies, and the local member for Waitaki. I want to read this key statement from the Primary Production Committee’s report on the Reserves and Other Land Disposal Bill: “Having reviewed their records, Land Information New Zealand and the Department of Conservation are satisfied that treating Lookout Point as a reserve was indeed a genuine mistake, resulting from the various meanings and legal uses of the word ‘reserve’. While we appreciate the sentiment of submitters and acknowledge there is contention on this issue, after receiving advice from Land Information New Zealand and the Department of Conservation we believe that the land was actually classified as ‘reserves’ for an endowment in aid of borough funds rather than as a recreation or similar reserve.”

For me, that statement summarises several years of work by people in the Ōāmaru community, by the local member, Jacqui Dean, by numerous Government departments, and by the Primary Production Committee. I want to address that, because I think it is important at this point as well not only to say that there has been research by the community, that our select committee has considered the bill at length—

💬 Hon Member: The Labour members.

—and that the Labour members have gone down to Ōāmaru, I acknowledge that, and that the National members have put a lot of faith in Jacqui Dean, because we know what a great member she is—

💬 Maggie Barry: And I’ve been there.

And Maggie Barry has personally been there, as well. As Annette King said, I think, we will leave no stone unturned, which is incredibly appropriate given that we are talking about Ōāmaru.

But can I come back to some more of the history, because I think members will be very interested in this. The Primary Production Committee heard submissions on 7 May 2009, and the council presented to the committee at the time. This was the key part of its report, which I think is aligned with our report, but it says, as reported back from the Primary Production Committee: “Clauses 18 to 20 relate to land in the Waitaki District known as Lookout Point or Forrester Heights. The submissions we received concern one key issue: whether Lookout Point was mistakenly treated as reserve land under Reserves Act legislation, or whether the council is attempting to circumvent the law to enable a building development.” I think what is really important is that we come back again to that point—

💬 Phil Twyford: Cut to the chase.

No, it is very important, given that so many people have worked on this issue, Mr Twyford, that we go through this history and understand that there has been a lot of research by Government agencies, the community, the Primary Production Committee, and the Local Government and Environment Committee. I know what it is like to have a local issue that is of controversy. What I am very confident of as I stand in this House is that we have left no stone unturned. We have had this issue go through several select committees in Parliament. There has been so much research on this issue.

But the key, important point that I want to make is that through several select committee processes we have ended up at this point where we can say we are confident in the approach we have taken with regard to Lookout Point. But what we have said in the select committee’s report on the bill is that the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill is currently before Parliament, and we have made this point: “We know that clause 7 of this bill is the same as clause 20 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill, which is currently awaiting its second reading in the House.”, and what is important is that “There is nothing in Standing Orders that disallows two different bills from having identical clauses.” I think the conclusion is that in this circumstance “the identical clause can be removed from whichever bill is enacted second by an amendment at the committee of the whole House stage.” I wanted to raise that point because I think it is very important for this House to understand that so many members across the Chamber have cared so much about this issue that we have got two identical clauses in two bills. We know that it is important to the people of Ōāmaru to resolve this issue finally and once and for all. That does not mean that every person in the community will be happy, but what it means is that there has been a very, very thorough process with regard to this bill.

Again, I want to acknowledge the member for Waitaki, because I think she has dealt with this issue with incredible diligence. She has carried herself well throughout it. I want to acknowledge the people of Ōāmaru for the many submissions they put in. I want to acknowledge members across the House. I can see Eugenie Sage. I can see the Hon Annette King. I want to acknowledge Nicky Wagner, the brilliant chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, and other members of the committee for the diligent approach we have taken on this issue. Finally, can I commend to the House this bill to resolve this issue once and for all, so that the people of Ōāmaru will know that we have left no stone unturned and they can sleep easier tonight. Thank you.

Back when I was considerably younger—

💬 Dr David Clark: Before that speech started.

Before the last speech started—actually, it was a lot longer than that. Over 5 years ago I was the Minister for Land Information. I was also the former member for Otago; Jacqui Dean knocked me off my perch. The local council came to see me and said it had a problem. It had a piece of land called Forrester Heights, and it was only a very small part of Lookout Point, which is an issue that vexes some locals in terms of the terminology we are using around this. But, anyway, the council came to see me and said: “We want to put it beyond doubt that this land is endowment land rather than reserve land.” If it was reserve land and it was properly set aside as a reserve, then it could not just be taken by the council and sold, with the money to be put into some other purpose. If it was an endowment, if it was endowment property, then it is treated as an asset that the council can do what it wants with, including selling it and using the money for some other purpose.

I was aware that there was controversy around this, because some of the members of my own labour organisation at the time, and the Labour Party, had a contrary view. As the Minister for Land Information it was my duty to find out whether the council was correct or whether the opponents to sale were correct. Despite the fact that it might have been politically advantageous for me to take a political line, I never did. I actually just sought the facts.

How do you do that? Well, if you are the Minister for Land Information the traditional view is that the ministry writes to the Department of Conservation and seeks its advice as to the proper status of the land. The Department of Conservation has got planners and it also has a duty to make sure that conservation interests, including those in respect of reserves, are properly dealt with. If, as a basis of that inquiry, it becomes clear that the status of the land is incorrectly recorded on the title to the land and it needs to be fixed, then the route through to doing that is generally through a Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. There is a good tradition in this Parliament that the only things that go into a Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill are things where it is clear that there is a mistake on the title and it is not contentious.

I looked into it and I had initial advice from the Department of Conservation, which advised Land Information, which advised me that this land was properly described as endowment land. Because of the criticisms and the correspondence and the personal representations I had had from the other side, I actually got the department, through my office, to go back and check. It did, and it found again that it was endowment land, not reserve land. So way back then, when I was considerably younger than I am now, we put it in a bill.

The sad thing about this is that the delay here has had quite serious financial consequences for the council. Since this bill has been sitting on the Order Paper and has been mucked around with for 4 years, property prices have gone back in Ōāmaru. The amount the council is going to get for these sections has decreased. A number of the contracts the council had to sell sections will have fallen over because they will have passed the date by which—

💬 Jacqui Dean: It’s all gone.

It is all gone. All of them have fallen over because they are beyond the point where they had to get their Resource Management Act consents and provide new titles to the lots being sold. I have to say to the National Party that I do not think that reflects very well on this House, because this has—

💬 Jacqui Dean: No—it sat for 3 years on the Order Paper under Labour.

Jacqui Dean says it had 3 years on the Order Paper under Labour. That is not correct, because I was not the Minister for Land Information for 3 years, and it was actually me that put it in the original Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. What is correct is that at the end of the last Parliament it was in a Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. Ever since then it has been able to be passed within a week—within a week.

💬 Hon Member: It wasn’t a priority.

But it was not a priority for the Government. The Government then decided it would start this process again, despite the fact that all these things were looked into by a prior Primary Production Committee looking at the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. It thought it would do it again through a local bill, the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill—sorry, not the Government, the local member. I think the local member was right to do that, and Jacqui Dean is to be congratulated on doing that, because there was no other way forward. The Government refused to bring this matter forward on the Order Paper.

There are a couple of things. The paper record of this is tortured. It is so tortured that the select committee that last looked at it was persuaded by a submission from Barry Monks, who had turned up an archive that no one else had turned up. Barry Monks is to be congratulated on finding a paper trail in this that none of the departments, as far as I am aware, had found. That paper trail appeared to say that this was a reserve, rather than a piece of endowment land. But there were bits of information that went both ways, and so the select committee said that the only way to sort this out was for the select committee to get some legal advice on the basis of all of this paper that had now been found, and the full history that was then available, in order to clarify whether at law it was endowment land or reserve land. Sadly for Barry Monks and the other people in Ōāmaru who feel very strongly that this is properly classified as a reserve, the proper advice is that on the balance of the evidence it is endowment land. So a decision has to be taken. The Local Government and Environment Committee members from both sides of the House reached the conclusion that it was properly endowment land and therefore it ought to be sold, which, of course, was the effect of the provision in the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill as a consequence of the process we went through when I was considerably younger.

There is one further point. We hear this land described as Lookout Point. I know that one of the issues that vexes some of the local opponents to this is that they think this misdescribes this land. The land is locally known as Forrester Heights, which is part of Lookout Point. Lookout Point includes some very important reserves, and there is no doubt that a lot of the land on Lookout Point is a reserve. There are walking tracks on it. It is not part of the land adjacent to the road, which is the Forrester Heights subdivision. Lookout Point goes further than that. So I want to put on record for the satisfaction of those people who are interested in that issue that I agree with them—it is properly described as Forrester Heights rather than Lookout Point—but the legal description of the land, which is what matters in this bill, is correct.

It is a shame that the finances of the council are worse because there has been so much delay in passing the original piece of legislation, which still languishes on the Order Paper. You know, this Parliament could have passed the original bill and not just fixed this problem but fixed the about dozen other issues that are also fixed in the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill—which was going to fix similar problems in other parts of the country—in the same time that it has taken us to pass this bill. In fact, there would have been a lot less waste of select committee time doing again what has already been done. But, no, it has been chosen to proceed by way of a local bill, because the member for Waitaki, Jacqui Dean, became frustrated that her Government would not pass the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill, which was of identical effect in respect of the Forrester Heights land. She found that to advance that, the member had to advance a local bill. It is a pity that this could not have been advanced as part of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill.

I am sad for the people who think that they were right in terms of their criticisms of the council. Could I also say that the confusion that reigned in this was not the fault of either the council or the people who thought from the paper record that this was properly reserve land. It was a truly confusing set of affairs. I am not criticising anyone on either side of the debate. Sadly, in the end, where there is a dispute as to what the correct state of affairs is, someone eventually has to make a decision. Otherwise these things would just go on until I am retired—even older. But the reality is that in the end, where there is a dispute, someone has to take a decision eventually. In this case, both sides of Parliament have looked at it responsibly and in a principled manner, have applied the law, which it is our duty to do, and have found that this is endowment land. Accordingly, the Labour Party will be voting for this bill.

I rise to speak with pleasure to the Waitaki District Council Reserves—

💬 Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to inquire whether the member has, in fact, visited Forrester Heights, because there is a Standing Order called the “Maggie Barry principle”—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, no. The member is being facetious. That is a debatable point, quite frankly. I call the honourable member Maggie Barry.

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have dealt with the issue.

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would just like to note that there is a continuing pattern of the point of order process being abused in this House, and that is a very good example.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will be seated. I have dealt with the issue. This is a robust Parliament. There is always some leeway, and it is up to the Speaker to judge the situation. I call the honourable member Maggie Barry.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

💬 Holly Walker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just have a query regarding the speaking order. I believe that the next speaker on the list should be my colleague from the Green Party Eugenie Sage.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Actually, to be quite truthful, you are absolutely right. But I am now in the awkward position that once I have called someone I have to accept the call. I did not see the member. My apologies. Unfortunately, I have called Maggie Barry, and she has to take the call. I call the honourable member Maggie Barry.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let the record stand true that Maggie Barry stands to speak to the second reading of the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill, after a couple of false starts, and mischievous ones at that. There is nothing uncommon there, though, particularly from the member who has come a long way from Devonport to Te Atatū, and apparently he has flip-flopped on his holidays down to Ōāmaru. How commendable.

My family landed in Ōāmaru back in the 1860s. It is an area we know particularly well. I am very happy to speak to this bill, and I commend Jacqui Dean as a local member for finally getting this up and running. There have been a number of submissions around this over a number of years. We heard recently from the shockingly aged David Parker—such is the toll that leadership has taken on him. He has certainly aged in front of our very eyes, has he not? The legislation languished under Labour for 3 years. There were submissions called for at that time, which never got anywhere.

I note the energy of Jacqui Dean, who had to put up with a lot of silly conspiracy theories, which the Hon Annette King said she did not share but still wanted to talk about again today. There have been a lot of mischievous comments made around this, and I noted that Barry Monks has been talked about a lot. He was a submitter who came up with some arcane and, as it turned out, totally unfounded and incorrect information, which held the Local Government and Environment Committee’s deliberations up for some period of time because it was wrong—completely wrong. That was the advice we had. Interestingly, though, Barry Monks has a long association with the area as the Labour Party candidate—the failed Labour Party candidate—for the area. Jacqui Dean holds the seat. I wonder why so many Labour Party people went down there to have a look. But let us put that to one side. We will give them the benefit of the doubt. It is not something that they usually do with us, but we have a lot more largesse than that.

I would like to talk about the issue at hand, which is the putting right of something that is actually not something we should be dwelling on for this length of time in Parliament. The status of the land needed to be defined. This bill does that. There were mistakes made by councils, dating back a very, very long way. Section 13 of the Public Reserves Act Amendment Act 1862 provides that whenever any land is set apart by the Governor as a public reserve, and by publication in the Gazette has been declared to have been set aside as a reserve, that land is not to be alienated by way of sale, mortgage, lease, or otherwise. There is no argument about that, but it is about how this land is described. There is no evidence to support the view that Lookout Point has been set apart as a public reserve under that amendment Act. We discussed all of this at length.

When you go back through the files—and I guess the Ōāmaru Borough Council in those days was commendable, in that it tried to keep as many records as it could; it was very careful about what it did with its paperwork, but it did slip through and this was a mistake—when the council searched through what was there, it was able to go through a very large paper trail indeed. I think a lot of our submitters are to be congratulated, because they spent a lot of time and a lot of effort going back through the history, going back through the paperwork, and trying to determine what, in fact, is the status of this much sought after and locally very important piece of land.

I do know Ōāmaru very well. I have been there many times in many incarnations, as it were. Its botanic garden is amongst the oldest in the country, and a very fine one it is too. It is visible from Forrester Heights, or Lookout Point. For those members of the Labour Party who did not go on the tiki-tour down there, we were given the pictures and we have had a look at it. To refresh our memories, this is a prime piece of land that also looks out over the blue penguin colony. What some members may not know—such was the exhaustive nature of some of the submissions that we all know it now—is that it is a remarkable piece of avifauna, rich reserves of dead bird fossils. It is very rare in the South Island. Bird bones, especially of the moa, are recorded findings in the limestone and have been preserved, which make the area unique. So there are very many reasons why a lookout of this kind will be preserved. It needs to be properly understood in terms of what its status is, so that it will be preserved in perpetuity.

We heard from Mayor Alex Familton, and the chief executive officer of the council, Michael Ross, as well, that when this is finally resolved and goes through, as I am sure it will, once the Committee deliberations have occurred and then it is back here in the House again for its third reading, they have undertaken to go back to the people of Ōāmaru and to ask them what it is that they would like. I think Forrester Heights and Lookout Point will be enshrined as a reserve and will keep that status. As Jacqui Dean has pointed out, she has been walking there many times. It is a favoured place in Ōāmaru to look out over the harbour and look out over what is an extremely attractive historic town.

There are a couple of issues that the council wanted resolved. It worked closely, incidentally, with Ngāi Tahu, which had also done a great deal of research on this matter and had found out that there was, in fact, no problem around the council’s view that the Waitaki District Council has a right to the freehold title to the land and that it is therefore not subject to the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998. This was something that was raised by a number of submitters. It is a legitimate concern, or it was felt to be. Once again, it was explored in detail. If anyone ever wondered about, I suppose, the robust nature and the rigorous nature of what goes on in select committees, this really is a case in point, this member’s bill. The level of detail that the submitters chose to come forward with was such that it then sent the very hard-working officials back to the books and back to the drawing board to double-check everything. I can assure you that the findings that we have come out with now are very much the accurate ones.

When this matter was discussed within the Primary Production Committee in relation to the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill, back in 2009, there were, I think, 37 written submissions, and there were a further 19 heard. That was that committee. But that was all put to one side, and the committee that I sat on, the Local Government and Environment Committee, considered 27 submissions, and they were very detailed as well. I have handed some on to my colleagues. Paul Goldsmith, who is chatting happily here, could perhaps hand them to me. Paul is handing over the submissions. Thank you—very good. He is paying close attention to his colleagues. There is a big stack of them. Suffice it to say that there were 27 submissions from interested parties, and we heard seven of them. The detail was enormous. There are kilos and kilos of material. There is some around there, as well. The other interested members of our party have also been looking at these. [Interruption] Yes, it is the visual part of the speech. I have the photographs, in fact, if the honourable member would like to see them. We could easily do that. This is a bill that we know far more about than we would ever have imagined possible, actually.

Land Information New Zealand has also taken a pivotal role in all this, and the Department of Conservation. They have looked at it exhaustively. They too are satisfied that treating Lookout Point land as a reserve was indeed a genuine mistake back in the day. Their assessment of it—and it is one that I agree with—is that this mistake resulted from the various meanings and legal uses of the word “reserve”. I guess with a country as young as New Zealand, sometimes the semantics have tripped us up where we have not had the traditional examinations at a local level. But these have, in fact, been corrected now. So although we very much appreciate the sentiment of the submitters and acknowledge that there is a contention in this issue, after receiving advice from Land Information New Zealand and the Department of Conservation, the belief very much of us on this side of the House and in the select committee is that the land was actually classified as a reserve for an endowment in aid of borough funds, rather than as a recreation or similar reserve.

The Otago Daily Times, not surprisingly—a very active local paper—has also taken a huge interest in this issue and has followed it. Again, as somebody who is relatively new to this House, I commend the local media for taking notice of, and paying close attention to, the detailed workings of cases that are reflected, from their local community, in the House. The Forrester Heights status is likely to change with something that the Otago Daily Times predicted earlier this year, and it is very much in favour of it as well, as are a number of the people who have written in and given letter contributions to the Otago Daily Times.

The Waitaki Ratepayers and Concerned Citizens chair said that he was disappointed in the decision, because he was concerned that the land could be split up into residential developments, and this was something that was echoed by some of the submitters. I think it is that fear that motivated many people to come forward to our select committee. They were worried that if the status changed, then there would be other, less welcome changes that would be occurring, other than just tidying up the wording, the paperwork, and the semantics of it. But, as I said, the mayor came to the select committee and reassured us repeatedly that he would be checking with the people. It was an opportunity, really, to re-engage with the community on the use of land that was very dear to their hearts and the hearts of the community.

So it is with pleasure that I speak to the second reading. Thank you. I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to take a short call on the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. I have been pleased to be a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, which, as Nikki Kaye noted, has worked very diligently on this bill. I am grateful to Mr Parker for his explanation of the history of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill because it was very puzzling, as a new member, to see that there were two pieces of legislation that had gone through different select committees that dealt with the same piece of land.

The Green Party, like the select committee, has been diligent on the bill. Our co-leader Metiria Turei visited the site at Lookout Point—which, for members who have not been there, is this piece of land, Forrester Heights—and talked with the locals who were concerned about its future status; some of those people made submissions to the select committee. The Green Party’s position was to support this bill, at its first reading, to the select committee, and that is because it fixes historical clerical errors in relation to the legal status of two areas of land that continue to be uncontroversial. But based on public submissions to the select committee, strong community concerns about the proposed sale of Lookout Point by the council, and the inadequate consultation that the council did in relation to its proposed subdivision we will now be opposing the bill, unless there is support for Supplementary Order Paper 150 in my name. That Supplementary Order Paper seeks to delete clause 7, which is the substantive clause in relation to Lookout Point, and to make consequential changes to the bill.

The uncontroversial clauses in the bill are in relation to the reserve status of land with a former caretaker’s cottage on it, which is associated with the Palmerston Showgrounds in North Otago, and another small lot in Ōāmaru. Because the council sold these lots when it did not have the power to sell them, the bill regularises that by revoking the reserve status. It was those mistakes in the purported sale of properties that the council thought that it owned, but were actually Crown-owned reserve, that have obviously got implications for the current owners and occupiers of the land and obviously should be resolved. So we are supportive of those clauses that clear up those ownership issues for the current landholders.

But it is clause 7 that is problematic, because that is seeking to clarify the status of the Forrester Heights area of Lookout Point, and that is to be endowment land held by the Waitaki District Council. As endowment land it would be able to be sold by the council for this subdivision at Forrester Heights, and the council would use the funds, I understand, to promote the restoration of the Ōāmaru Opera House and the art gallery. Of course, that was the issue that attracted quite substantial submissions and, as Maggie Barry has noted, quite weighty submissions to the select committee because of community concern. Certainly, using the funds for the opera house and the art gallery is very worthy, but so is the retention in public ownership of land that the community values for recreation, for walking, and for the fact that it is the backdrop to the town and has got sweeping views from Cape Wanbrow out over the harbour and the town.

That is why we have changed our status on the bill and are not supportive of the land being endowment land for council purposes. That is largely because of the lack of consultation by the council. Submitters’ evidence was that the council had not consulted properly when it undertook the application for a subdivision, and that, in fact, it had granted itself a resource consent for the subdivision without that consent being publicly notified under the Resource Management Act and without appointing external commissioners to consider the application. So there was no opportunity for the public to get involved under the Resource Management Act processes and give their views to council on the potential impacts of the subdivision and on the value of that land to the public. I think that is partly why there has been such strong community concern, because there has not been a legitimate avenue for that to be expressed through the due legal process. Then, when the subdivision consent for Forrester Heights was due to lapse because it had not been implemented, the council extended the lapsing period again, without that being publicly notified.

As other members have noted, the land is significant because of its sweeping coastal views, because of its use for recreation, because the little blue penguin colony is at the base of the cliffs, and because of the limestone fossils and the use of the area by moas in the past. The community did not get a chance through the Resource Management Act process to highlight all of these values and to point out to the council that that would be affected by the subdivision.

As one submitter, Helen Stead, a former Waitaki District councillor, said, “WDC action by-passing formal local government planning process in favour of asking central government to make decisions over local land use without first giving local residents opportunity to comment is unacceptable. … Oamaru & Waitaki District residents & ratepayers have not been given the chance to submit on either the revoking of the Reserve status or the non-notified consent granting approval for development & sale of the land.” Certainly, we were given assurances by the mayor of the council that the subdivision signs would be removed, but I am not aware of the actual resource consent for subdivision having been withdrawn by the district council, so that means it continues to have the legal right to proceed with the subdivision if this bill goes through and if the land becomes endowment land, which the council can then onsell.

As other members of the House have noted, there has been quite considerable evidence, historical evidence, by submitters on the use of the land, and photographs like this one show the 1890 Arbor Day celebrations and the fact that the land has been treated as if it were a public reserve for more than a century. It was not only these Arbor Day celebrations and the fact that trees were planted there, but just the public use of the area as well. So there is strong public support for the land remaining in council ownership, and there was evidence provided by Mr Monks that the initial decision to vest the land as a reserve was not made in error. The evidence he gave was about the way the land had been treated by the Crown and local council since 1862, and, of course, it was recognised and designated as a reserve in the district plan until 2005, when the council changed that designation.

I certainly understand that the council may well choose to reconsider whether the subdivision development would proceed, but it still has the resource consent that would allow it to do that, and that is why the Green Party is opposing the bill unless Supplementary Order Paper 150 to delete clause 7 as it applies to Lookout Point is passed, because there has been an inadequate process and inadequate consultation by council with the community. The bill would essentially legitimise that and create another wrong by allowing the land to be sold. Thank you.

I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First for the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill, brought to the House by the local member, Jacqui Dean, and also I would commend Jacqui Dean for bringing this to the House in relation to this public land in the Waitaki district. New Zealand First also sent a representative down to Ōāmaru, our MP Denis O’Rourke, Christchurch New Zealand First list MP, to look at it. Denis, with a legal background and being a lawyer, was able to assess it and look at the various aspects of the properties in question and advise our caucus accordingly. We are in support of the land in terms of the Palmerston Showgrounds and also the northern piece of land in Ōāmaru, Lot 1, DP 345820, transferring across under this bill, because both of those parcels of land have been proven to be in the hands of current lessees, are no longer deemed to be reserves by the council, and are appropriate to be passed by this bill.

However, our investigations do not fully support the information that came to the Local Government and Environment Committee in relation to Forrester Heights. New Zealand First still has grave concerns about that particular block of land, and we still believe that there is sufficient community concern from many people within the community that that land, rightfully perhaps while it is in dispute, should continue to remain as a public reserve. There are questions over that endowment land status, and questions over it having been transferred to a reserve nearly 100 years ago and how that paperwork was all transferred and signed off by the Governor-General. In a sense, because that reserve has been a reserve for over 100 years, back into the 1800s, it is almost incumbent on this Parliament to ensure that the likes of it is preserved.

When a community has had land like that and has come to know land like that for such a long period of time as the backdrop to the town of Ōāmaru, and where so many people still associate it with being part of that extended connection of Lookout Point, and where so many people in the community do cherish it as reserve land, it is, in a sense, a shame that other members of the community would wish to take that away for all time and subdivide it into 5.8 hectares of subdivision and put “For Sale” signs up on sections for houses to overlook the Ōāmaru Harbour, and also create a housing backdrop for central Ōāmaru itself. We have concerns because the likes of the Waitaki Ratepayers and Concerned Citizens association, the Friendly Bay Society, and many others in Ōāmaru say that it should not happen; therefore, we are not convinced that it should either.

I have been involved, over a number of years, in trying to acquire reserve land in many places and in going out on a huge limb to secure the likes of land at Long Bay on the North Shore, the likes of the Chelsea sugar refinery park land, and other land all around Auckland; also in helping the Auckland Regional Council to secure, was it Rakitū Island, out on the Hauraki Gulf, and in trying to secure more land under the Auckland Regional Council around the Auckland region; and, indeed, in supporting other councils around New Zealand to secure other reserves around New Zealand to have land in public reserve in perpetuity. So it also goes against the grain for me to see such a beautiful piece of reserve land, which is the backdrop to Ōāmaru, being put up for commercial sale, potentially, by its council, when so many other councils around New Zealand are trying to increase public reserve land for the use of our growing population. It does concern me that perhaps the priorities of the Waitaki District Council are not in accordance with a significant percentage of its population, and by going through with this particular bill we could, in fact, be reversing the tide of what is happening so often throughout New Zealand, with us trying to acquire greater green spaces for our population.

New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill. We are sad that we are not able to support the member. We commend the member for bringing the bill to the House, but at the same time when the information did come to the Local Government and Environment Committee from the likes of Barry Monks, Warren Crawford, and a number of others, there was still a certain level of doubt. Even though the officials have said that they believe it is correct, there is still a level of doubt, and I think that in these instances we should still err on the side of caution and we should always give land and reserves the benefit of the doubt. The benefit of the doubt in this case will result in the council taking something like $3 million profit from this land to go towards a $10 million refurbishment of the Ōāmaru Opera House, but money is money and once the money has gone, it is gone for ever. If the land is retained—if reserve land is retained and it is kept in that reserve status and situation—it will be there for ever. That is one of the things—$3 million will quickly come and go, but that reserve, once it is gone, will be gone for ever.

Some concern was also expressed by the community that—and I have not been up there myself, but it was mentioned to me—the views from up above and driving up to a particular lookout and other things would be affected by these houses being put there. Again, the impact on the community is that it takes away what have traditionally and for more than a century been various aspects and various lookouts over Ōāmaru. It would be a great shame if they were taken away.

Just in closing, can I say that New Zealand First will not be supporting this, and we hope that the district of Waitaki down there and the people of Waitaki can have another look at this. I think it was a great shame that “For sale” signs were put up a year or two ago for the land, before this was all determined, which caused huge consternation amongst many people in the community. That is not how it should have been. There was inadequate consultation. It did not go through a full, robust, transparent process, and, really, I think they should go back to the people of Ōāmaru and of the Waitaki district. The council should really ask the people of Ōāmaru and the Waitaki district whether they want it to go ahead with this, or whether the people want it to keep this reserve land for ever.

I rise to speak in favour of the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. I do so with great pleasure. This is a local bill sponsored by the MP for Waitaki. My colleague Jacqui Dean, I think, has done an excellent job. Why I emphasised “for Waitaki”—

💬 Paul Goldsmith: Where is Waitaki?

I have been there. I have been to Waitaki. I have been to Lookout Point. I have been to Ōāmaru.

💬 Kris Faafoi: Where haven’t you been?

Well, when you get to my age, you have been to most places, really. So it is a bit like one of the other Davids—David Parker—said: there are pleasures in being of a certain age. But I was a little surprised. I had hoped to hear from Andrew Williams, who is no stranger to the needs of local government and certainly no stranger to the need for a council to control its own destiny—I would have thought that he would be keen to support the initiative, given the very careful work that has been done by the Local Government and Environment Committee, rather than him just saying that he does not really know whether councils should do this or not. This is a council-nominated purpose, and, basically, surely central government should take due diligence and great care, but treat that requirement with great respect. It is a locally focused bill, but not one beyond the comprehension of non-Waitaki people. Nor is it one that is trivial or not deserving of this Chamber’s time.

I would have to say that I am a little concerned at the rapidity with which the Green Party tends to vote against bills. I sometimes wonder whether the Green members do it in the comfortable knowledge that others will support it, whereas I think it would be probably more serious of them if they considered the consequences if theirs was the deciding vote, and what would happen, rather than saying “Well, everyone else is going to pass it—we’ll take a contrary view.” and relishing that.

Far from this not being an important bill, this bill is one that highlights just how important it is that this House does not forget the matters of community interest—that bills with a community focus are no less important than those with a national focus. It is a bill that helps to keep the current use of land viable while also addressing a historical error made, essentially, in relation to semantics. This happens. It happens particularly in land information memoranda. I am addressing these questions at the moment for people in the West Coast.

Bills like this are why we have electorate MPs representing their communities. It is a credit to Jacqui Dean that she has spoken for her region in such a fashion. I commend her for her effective advocacy as the member of Parliament for Waitaki. I would also like to take my hat off to Nicky Wagner, chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee. That was a great committee in the days when Phil and I were—

💬 Phil Twyford: Oh, good times!

Phil Twyford and I were on that committee. It is a committee that can handle this sort of thing. It is a big committee. All parties are represented. It does a good job. It does a good job. And it has done a good job with this one.

💬 Kris Faafoi: Let’s sing “Kumbaya”.

Well, I do not know—I think it is important that we do celebrate things when they are handled in a non-partisan manner to the benefit of a community. Kris Faafoi thinks it is funny. I do not think it is funny.

As the land was originally purchased by the Government from Ngāi Tahu in 1848—you want the details—as part of the Kemp purchase, the land was included in the original subdivision of the town of Ōāmaru. Ngāi Tahu have a significant place in this issue. As others have noted, they have taken considerable advice on the matter. They have confirmed to the council that their view is that the Waitaki District Council has a right to the freehold title of the land, and it is, therefore, not subject to the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998. That is significant.

It is a bill that has received support from its respective council, which has worked with and received support from Land Information New Zealand, the aforementioned Ngāi Tahu, the Department of Conservation, the Commissioner of Crown Lands, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. It is not hard to see why this bill holds such diverse support.

The Palmerston Showgrounds and Lot 1, DP 345820 parts of the bill are straightforward revocations of the Reserves Act status. In the case of the Palmerston Showgrounds clauses, it will allow Waitaki District Council to sell the land to the current lessees. In the case of the lot 1 clauses, the bill will allow Waitaki District Council to regularise the sale of the section to the current registered proprietors, and allow the title of the property to be unencumbered by any notation relating to the Reserves Act. This is as it should be. So, too, I would like to suggest for the critics, is the resolution to Forrester Heights, also known as Lookout Point. Glossed over, one could say, in the lamentations of Supplementary Order Paper 150 in the name of Eugenie Sage, this issue has been raised before in Parliament. I would like to highlight again the support of Land Information New Zealand, which, as I say, is an organisation I have had some little amount to do with. It is a very, very considered group of people. It has systems that go back to the very first surveys in New Zealand, and it does not make decisions lightly.

The Department of Conservation, as discussed, provided its support in the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill select committee stage in 2009. After receiving 37 submissions and hearing a further 19, the Primary Production Committee reported as follows: “The submissions we received concern one key issue: whether the Lookout Point land was mistakenly treated as reserve land under the Reserves Act legislation, or whether the council is attempting to circumvent the law to enable a building development.” We heard earlier from Labour members saying that this confusion concerned them. It concerned them. They went down and turned every stone—they turned every stone—and came away convinced. So this is not just a National conspiracy. It is a National-Labour conspiracy. To continue the quote, “Having reviewed their records, Land Information New Zealand and the Department of Conservation are satisfied that treating Lookout Point as a reserve was indeed a genuine mistake, resulting from the various meanings and legal uses of the word “reserve”. While we appreciate the sentiment of submitters and acknowledge there is contention on this issue, after receiving advice from Land Information New Zealand and the Department of Conservation we believe that the land was actually classified as “reserves” for an endowment in aid of borough funds rather than as a recreation or similar reserve.” So it was a genuine mistake. On this side of the House—and I am glad we are standing shoulder to shoulder with Labour on this one—

💬 Phil Twyford: Stop, stop, please.

—as many other groups clearly are, as well—we are of the opinion that progress and the best use of land should not be hindered by genuine mistakes.

This bill in intent and in action is local in nature but should not be only local in support. During my time as chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee I was proud to work on and progress bills such as these. They are very, very important, and you get a lot of satisfaction from it. Indeed, bills such as these are why we have the Local Government and Environment Committee, and why its tireless work and achievements under Nicky Wagner should be commended. I support this bill, and call on other members to do the same. Thank you.

I just want to say that I am a little surprised that Maggie Barry took a call in this debate. There is a long-established principle—not really a Standing Order—known as the “Maggie Barry principle”. For example, if you do not have children, then you should not speak about a bill that relates to child rearing or children. It was very clear from Maggie Barry’s speech that she had never visited Forrester Heights. She showed us photographs and she told us stories about the old days when she visited the botanic gardens in Ōāmaru, but it was very clear that she had not visited Forrester Heights, and that is a clear breach of the “Maggie Barry principle”.

Labour is supporting this Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. As colleagues have pointed out, no Ōāmaru stone has been left unturned as we have sought to solve the mystery that lies at the heart of this bill, and that is the controversy over whether or not this land that we are talking about at Forrester Heights was indeed endowment land, or whether it was land with reserve status. That confusion lies at the heart of the two debates, now, that we have had in the House on this and a lengthy select committee process.

A number of members of this House visited Ōāmaru and, in fact, visited Forrester Heights. I was one of those, and I want to thank Warren Crawford and Barry Monks, who have really done everything they could to try to ensure that the truth comes out in this issue. Barry Monks did significant historical research, working through—sifting through—what is an incomplete, confusing, and chaotic paper trail, the historical record about this block of land. I want to commend Barry Monks for the work that he did.

But it is clear—for members on the Labour benches, at least—that to the best of our knowledge, and to the best of our understanding and, I think, that of a majority on the Local Government and Environment Committee, it was in fact a genuine mistake, lost in the mists of time now, that this block of land known as Forrester Heights was regarded as reserve land whereas, in fact, it was endowment land.

I want to say to New Zealand First and Green colleagues in this debate that I believe that it is pretty clearly established that the question of what happens to this land—whether it is developed or not—is a matter for the Waitaki District Council to decide. It is not a matter for this House, through some back-door route—for instance, by denying a bill that seeks to rectify the legal status of the land. It is not a legitimate course of action for this House to interfere in the normal and legitimate workings of the democratically elected council of Waitaki District.

I can understand that the New Zealand First members take the view that they were not convinced by the discussion at the select committee. That is a matter of interpretation and reasoning. That is entirely their call to make, of course, and that is the basis of New Zealand First’s position. But I do question, really, the logic and coherence of the Green Party’s position in this debate. To vote against this bill on the basis that it does not believe that the quality of the consultation that the Waitaki District Council made in relation to seeking a resource consent for subdivision—the quality of public consultation—was good enough is not a legitimate or logical reason to vote against this bill. So that, I think, needs to be said.

Why were the people of Ōāmaru, or at least some of the community in Ōāmaru, so suspicious about this bill? I think there is a reason why the people of Ōāmaru were suspicious about what looked like, on the face of it, a kind of jack-up between property developers and local politicians to turn what they regarded as a piece of valuable public reserve land into a private housing subdivision, and the reason is that the National Party has form in this area. There is a reason why the public is suspicious of a party that never hesitates to try to sell off public resources and public assets into private ownership. That is the reason that the people of Ōāmaru are suspicious that the National Party would bring a bill to this House to try to flog off public reserve land. As it turns out, in this instance it is the right thing to do, we believe, based on the best reading of the historical record, to rectify the confusion and the ambiguity about the status of this block of land.

But there is a reason that people are suspicious of the National Party: because it has a track record of selling off assets that belong to the community, that belong to the public. The National Party believes ideologically that property and assets that belong to the people can best be shifted into private ownership and private control. It has a track record of constantly undermining our democratic institutions in local government. Within the next few days we are going to debate a bill in this House, the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill, which does a gross disservice to communities and to local democracy in this country. So those are the reasons why people are suspicious of the National Party.

There is another member’s bill on the Order Paper currently. It is the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill, which is another bill—

💬 Hon Chester Borrows: A local bill.

It is a local bill. I beg your pardon. Thank you to the member for correcting me. It is a local bill, but it is another bill that on the face of it looks like a deal that has been cooked up by local interests to shift a publicly owned water supply into private hands. People are suspicious of that, and they will be. The National Party gives them every reason to be suspicious about that. The members on the other side of the House do not like hearing a few home truths, but they should just listen, and, in fact, listen to the voices of the people of New Zealand who are utterly opposed to asset sales and privatisation.

I visited Ōāmaru as part of a trip around New Zealand talking to rural and provincial councils, and actually listening to them, about how this Government is squeezing the lifeblood out of local roads and local transport because of its misguided and mismanaged transport policies. I was in Ōāmaru and the local Federated Farmers and the local council were scathing about the failure of the local member to stand up for them on the question of local roads. There was not only the question of local roads and how this Government is cutting the funding for local roads and putting more and more pressure on the local ratepayer; they were terribly upset about what this Government is doing with the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill—taking the democratic rights of local communities away from them, and setting communities up all around rural and provincial New Zealand for forced amalgamations. That is what this Government’s agenda is in local government. That is why people have been so suspicious about this bill.

But, as it turns out, I believe that the member for Waitaki should be congratulated, as many colleagues have said, on bringing this bill to the House. It is a perfectly good and reasonable bill. The select committee has done its work. It has done its work, it has taken the advice of officials, it has investigated the historical record, and I believe that the best efforts have been made to actually determine what the appropriate status for this land is and whether it should be endowment land or reserve land. Labour is supporting this bill. Thank you very much.

I hesitate to stand up in front of my learned chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, but I would like to have my say on this important bill, the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. I was glad to hear from the previous speaker, Phil Twyford, his congratulations to the excellent member for Waitaki, Jacqui Dean, but I thought he was rather unkind in suggesting that there was some nervousness on the part of the local constituency about what the National Party’s intentions were. I mean, given the fact that this member has a 14,140 majority—

💬 Hon Member: How much?

—14,140 over Barry Monks—indeed, this person who has been held up to be commended. That has been the number of people voting for Jacqui Dean, and I think that is a great testament to the popularity of that member in the local environment and a testament to the hard work and the support of the National Party.

There was a member who spoke earlier, Mr David Parker, who used to be a member in this area, I believe, some time ago. I understand that he tried to deal with the situation that we are dealing with in this bill, but failed to make any progress on what turned out to be a difficult and intractable issue.

💬 Kris Faafoi: Shouldn’t you be talking about Epsom?

Yes, well, funnily enough, that member did indeed come up to Epsom, and he failed to have much traction in that area, either. He spoke with a great deal of clarity on a number of issues in the Epsom electorate, but I do not think he gained a lot of sympathy with the locals. To be sure, the people of Epsom do tend to be focused on understanding the importance of enterprise in the development of this country and its economy, and I do not think Mr Parker’s messages around extra taxes and capital gains resonate very well with the locals up there, so he went on. I do think, nevertheless, that David Parker would make a fine leader of the Labour Party if he had an opportunity.

Fundamentally, this bill is about fixing an error that was made back in 1937, when this land was mistakenly vested in the Waitaki District Council as a reserve. We all make mistakes. Indeed, sometimes political parties make mistakes when they are choosing leaders and when they are deciding where the future of the party is going to be. I suppose we have to reap the consequences of our mistakes. There comes a time when you have to set them right, and it will be interesting to see whether over the next few days the Labour Party—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

—rectifies what may have been a mistake. Sorry, do I need to shorten things? Oh, right.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Back to the bill.

Getting back to Waitaki, then, interestingly, this bill really harks back to history. When we look at this land, which was originally purchased by the Government from Ngāi Tahu in 1848 as part of the Kemp purchase, it was then part of the original subdivision of the town of Ōāmaru. Then we go on to 1885, when the land was set aside as an endowment in aid of funds for the benefit of the then Ōāmaru Borough Council. I heard another member, Chris Finlayson, in the general debate today talking about history. He was talking about the history of the Labour Party, which is going to be the subject of a seminar. It is interesting that they are focusing on the success of Norm Kirk.

💬 Phil Twyford: It’s already been.

Well, I would be very interested to hear some of the reports, because what you had here was celebrating the ability to take a 23-seat majority in 1992 and convert it into a 23-seat loss in 1975, and yet this is still held up as a great moment in history for the Labour Party. To go from a 23 majority to a 23 loss—I am sorry, that was 1972 to 1975. I am sorry about that. It is interesting. That was a remarkable period in our history, to go from such support in 1972 and then in 1975 being in a great deal of trouble.

Anyway, I am getting back to 1885, in that period when this land was set aside as an endowment in aid of funds for the benefit of the Ōāmaru Borough Council. You cannot help but go back to 1885—

💬 Brendan Horan: Is it actually going anywhere, this ramble?

—a very interesting time in New Zealand’s history, when this nation was being developed—somebody is trying to put me off—and when this nation was growing. When we look back at the seeds of that success in New Zealand in the 19th century, what do we see? We see the innovation that was so important to the farming communities around Ōāmaru, where it became a successful city and a prosperous part of New Zealand. We look at the export markets and the fact that New Zealand at the time had great access to the United Kingdom and was able to sell its produce around the world. Then we look at the skilled workforce that was ready and eager to work on the farms and to build with that Ōāmaru stone that beautiful city that we now visit and understand and love. Then we look at the development of infrastructure that was so important to the nation and to the development of this city, linking it with Timaru, linking it with Dunedin and with Christchurch. Then we think about the natural resources that the people who came from the other side of the world to Ōāmaru and set up their farms discovered, the gold up in the hills not far from Ōāmaru, and the fruit and vegetables and the grass from the land. Then we also think about the capital markets that they were able to draw upon, through sovereign funds from London, in order to grow and develop.

When we think about these, these are all the things that this Government is talking about in its Business Growth Agenda, which is the heart and soul of what this Government is trying to achieve here in this country. All those things that are so crucial now were indeed still crucial back in 1885, when this land that we are talking about here today was set aside as an endowment in aid of funds for the benefit of the Ōāmaru Borough Council. I just wanted to reassert or underline the importance of all those elements of the Business Growth Agenda, which I think cannot be repeated enough in this House, because that is what this Government is focusing on and what it is all about.

I just want to draw back, if I may, in the last few minutes that we have available to us to some of the intricacies of this bill. When we reached 1935 and there was an administrative oversight that saw this piece of land mistakenly vested in the Waitaki District Council as a reserve, we found that as a result of this confusion and the result of the semantics, the reserved land was endowed. It should have been endowed instead of reserved, as was intended. We had a long period of time when there was some confusion over the exact status of this land. So the council has been working closely with Land Information New Zealand, with Ngāi Tahu, with the Department of Conservation, with the Commissioner of Crown Lands, and, indeed, with the member for Waitaki, the very fine Jacqui Dean. She worked tirelessly and meticulously to try to work her way through the complications of this situation to bring it to such a happy result as we have today. We have reached the second reading and we are not far off from resolving once and for all this issue, so that the local council can have the ability to have the flexibility of arrangements that it needs in order to continue to serve its community successfully, and in a way that does not unduly burden them with rates.

I was glad that the previous speaker, Phil Twyford, did mention the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill, which will be coming back to the House, because that is an excellent piece of legislation. Certainly, the thing that people around my neighbourhood are most concerned about is the cost of local government. This bill will deal with it in a particular way of great importance to the people of Ōāmaru. But the wider legislation that will be coming down the track before too long will start to deal with some of those four well-beings that have led to a massive growth in local government spending over the last decade, and will get local government focused back on its essentials, such as dealing with its reserve and endowment lands and moving the community forward.

Getting back on to Ngāi Tahu, which took considerable advice in the development of this legislation, they confirmed to the council that it was their view that the Waitaki District Council has—

I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but his time has expired. The next call is a split call, so I am calling Raymond Huo for 5 minutes.

It is a great pleasure to take a call following that member who has just resumed his seat. I found Mr Paul Goldsmith’s speech on history very informing and entertaining. It is very regrettable that that member has not taught us about the history of the Epsom electorate.

But back to this Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. I would like to acknowledge Nicky Wagner—the good chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee—and also to acknowledge the member for Waitaki, Ms Jacqui Dean. She is doing a good job in bringing this bill to this House on behalf of her constituents, because they have waited for too long. Obviously, this bill is not her Government’s priority. The purpose of this bill is to—

💬 Jacqui Dean: It’s a local bill.

Well, calm down. This is a very serious speech about a serious bill. The purpose of this bill is to revoke the reservation status of two pieces of land within the Waitaki District, and they are Palmerston Showgrounds and Lot 1, DP 345820—it sounds like this bill has taken me back to my commercial property lawyer days. This bill also seeks to clarify the status of a third piece of land, which is Lookout Point.

Labour supported this bill going to the select committee. As my colleagues the Hon Annette King, the Hon David Parker, and Phil Twyford have said in their previous speeches, Labour supported this bill but we did raise a concern about the land at Lookout Point. The first two pieces of land were uncontroversial, and the issue here was whether the third piece, namely the Lookout Point land, was endowment land—and so able to be sold—or reserve land, in which case it could not be sold. After extensive research it was found, and the committee was satisfied, that the status of the land at Lookout Point was endowment land. At the select committee we carefully considered the claims that the land had been set apart as a reserve in or about 1862. Based on extensive research and legal advice, we are satisfied that Lookout Point was never set apart as a public reserve under the Public Reserves Act Amendment Act 1862. I agreed with the opinion expressed at the Local Government and Environment Committee that the word “reserve” in this particular context, rather interestingly, means to set apart Crown land as endowments, and that it does not enable a public reserve to be endowed.

Having said that, we note that the chairman of the local group Waitaki Ratepayers and Concerned Citizens, Warren Crawford, confirmed in January that his group continued to oppose the subdivision. It believed that the land should be retained as a reserve and planted in native trees, and suggested that children be involved in that on Arbor Days. The group’s biggest criticism was the lack of consultation, and, particularly, that a local member’s bill had not gone to a select committee, with the opportunity for public submissions. As a result, this bill did go to the select committee. That brings us to the four well-beings in the purpose section of the Local Government Act 2002. This National-ACT Government is about to ditch that section and replace it with a much narrower and restrictive purpose section. Also, this bill, although relatively uncontroversial, is a good example as to how important it is for us to remember that the four well-beings that are the purpose of local government—namely, the economic, social, cultural, and environmental well-beings—are what the “local” is all about.

Thank you, Mr Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I will just make a point—I am sorry to interrupt. I take it the Greens were not taking the balance of their 5-minute call? It is a 10-minute call—Nicky Wagner.

It is my great pleasure to talk to this Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill, and I would like to thank Jacqui Dean for bringing it to the House. It has been a really interesting bill because it has become a bit of a historical whodunit. As we have heard from many of the speakers here tonight, the bill originally focused on three pieces of land—three pieces of property—in the Ōāmaru area. There was little debate about the first two pieces. There was very little debate about the Palmerston Showgrounds—that is Palmerston in Ōtāgo—or about Lot 1, DP 345820, which is actually in Ōāmaru. The reason there was no debate was that both Ngāi Tahu and the Department of Conservation agreed with the council and its proposed actions. There was no opposition and there were no submitters on that part of the bill. So those two pieces of land were very easily and quickly dealt with.

But the status of Lookout Point, which is also known as Forrester Heights, is a totally different matter. It is a particularly interesting piece of land, a beautiful piece of land, and a piece of land that the people of Ōāmaru have used for a long time and have regarded as a reserve. At first glance at the documentation, it seemed to have changed description several times over the years. Indeed, there have been many twists and turns in how the property has been recorded, hence the question over its final status. The people of Ōāmaru have been dealing with this issue for a long time. I thought it was interesting to note that it has come to the House before and it has been discussed, but we have never been able to get a solution. So we were very keen to be able to work our way through this process. It has been fascinating trying to untangle the various iterations. I would like to thank the submitters who came to us for their interest and for the documentation that they produced. There was a lot of detailed information, and it was very interesting to us.

The Local Government and Environment Committee was very conscious that we had to get this right. You do not want to carry on with another error and keep this going on and on. You want to make a final decision, so we were very sure that we had to get to the bottom of it and get it right. I think that regardless of the official status, this land has been considered by the people of Ōāmaru as a reserve, as a public place, for many years. It was interesting to see Eugenie Sage’s photographs of Arbor Day. The people of Ōāmaru have gone there and planted it over the years. I would like to compliment our advisers. They did an excellent and thorough job, researching the history of Lookout Point and establishing its status. It was originally put aside in 1885 by Order in Council as endowment land. It was reserved as endowment land to fund the Ōāmaru Borough Council. I think that is where the confusion has come about—the word “reserve”. It was reserved, it was put aside, as endowment land, but the word “reserve” has been used in a much wider sense and the people of Ōāmaru have seen it as a reserve.

We went back to our advisers, and we said that we needed to have a detailed background of that. So they went back to their books and they searched high and low, and although there have been many changes—they went through each of the changes as they were recorded—the status of the land has never formally been changed. Although there were many changes in how the status was recorded and the way it went through the process, it was never formally changed. Our advisers told us that, Land Information New Zealand agreed with that, the Department of Conservation agreed with that, and Ngāi Tahu agreed with that. But, understanding the level of controversy over the land in the community, the select committee checked again, and double-checked, and checked again. We are convinced that despite the recording errors, the status of the land is still as originally set aside—reserved—in 1885 by Order in Council, for the purpose of endowment to aid the funds of the Ōāmaru Borough Council, which now, of course, is the Waitaki District Council.

The committee tried to make this very clear in our report. So we were very disappointed to read the headline in the Otago Daily Times that said: “Forrester Heights status likely to change”—obviously, it had missed the whole point of the report and the nuances behind it—and it commented: “The reserve land status of land at Forrester Heights at Oamaru is almost certain to be revoked, after a parliamentary select committee report agreed that its status should be changed.” Well, I have to say to the Otago Daily Times that that is not right. The status of the land has never officially changed, which just goes to show that you cannot believe everything you read in the newspapers, so remember that. The issue is emotive and there has been a lot of confusion surrounding the land. You can see that the newspaper has mixed up the purpose of the bill, because what it has ended up doing is focusing on the public’s desire to use and enjoy the reserve land. That is not relevant to this bill.

We all understand that people like reserve land and that people like green space in their community. And I do have to agree with Phil Twyford that although people enjoy that, this is to do with local decision-making—nothing to do with the bill, at all. Unfortunately, I do not agree with all Mr Twyford says, but in this case I think he made a very valid point. Everybody does understand that local people want to enjoy the ongoing use of reserve land. Our job was not to decide whether this was reserve land or not; it was to clarify the status and the historical background, and that is what we did. What happens now to that land must be a local decision, and then people must talk to their council about that. It is nothing to do with us. Our job is to clarify the status. This is endowment land. There is absolutely no doubt about it. It is not a reserve. The confusion, I think, has been about the fact that it was reserved as endowment land. But I think we can be very clear, and the committee was sure.

I would like to thank Jacqui Dean for sponsoring this bill. I think she has done a really good job. It has been a difficult time and there has been a lot of controversy in the community. I would like to thank the advisers for their detailed, careful, and thorough research, and for checking, double-checking, and checking again. And I would like to thank the committee for its commitment to getting this right. We did not just skate over the top of it. We were sure that it was important that people had clarity, that they knew what the results were, and that we did not go on perpetrating something that was not true. Thank you. I support this bill.