Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill

Because more than half a decade has passed since this bill was introduced to the House, I think it is proper for this Committee to question whether some of the matters in Part 2 are still current. For members who were not here in earlier parts of this debate, this bill was originally introduced on 15 August 2008. I was a younger man.

💬 Hon Annette King: You had more hair.

That is right—I had more hair. I was also the Minister for Land Information, and I was aware that this bill did things that were not particularly controversial. One or two were controversial to some. But the bill put right the various matters concerning the proper classification of lands in various parts of New Zealand, which were important to those councils, particularly, that were affected. I had an expectation that that bill would be referred back and dealt with pretty promptly by this House. Well, since then I think we have had three or four Ministers for Land Information. It was reported back to the House by the Primary Production Committee in 2009—it was not an undue delay—but then we have had approximately 6 years of delay while it has sat on the Order Paper.

One of the questions that I want to hear answered by the Minister in the chair, Louise Upston, is what cost that has caused to the people who are affected by the provisions in Part 2 and who have not had the clarification through this legislation that should have been through about 5 years ago. I have got one example that I would like some comment on from the Minister, and that relates to what is called locally the Forrester Heights land in Ōāmaru. That land was controversial in that the status of the land—it is actually called Lookout Point land in this provision but it is colloquially called the Forrester Heights land in Ōāmaru, and they will understand this debate if I refer to it as Forrester Heights land—was originally given to the council as endowment land, which meant that it was for monetary purposes for the council. If the council wanted to sell it and turn it into money and buy another piece of land or do something else with the money, then that was always up to it.

Through an accident in history, at some time the title was recorded in a confused way, which suggested that it was reserve land rather than endowment land. In the meantime the council had sold the land in the subdivision upon the land at the time of a price boom in Ōāmaru, which has long since passed, sadly, because the contracts for the sale of that land were at good prices for the council. There were some millions of dollars tied up in the sales, all of which fell over. Well, just about all did; maybe one or two contracts carried on, but my understanding—and Richard Prosser might know this, because it probably goes back to his time down there, when he stood down there—is that all of the contracts fell over because the council could not offer perfect title because this bill had not been passed.

So a consequence of this bill sitting on the Order Paper for so long was that the Waitaki District Council, which covers Ōāmaru, lost millions of dollars in potential sales of these properties. In the end the local member, Jacqui Dean, brought forward a local bill on behalf of the council to do what this bill was meant to do. But of course that was still too late to save the council the loss of millions of dollars and it also put the council to the cost of bringing forward a local bill. It had to pay a $50,000 fee, I think it was, to bring a local bill. Something like that—it is a substantial fee anyway. Someone can correct me if I have got that amount wrong. The council was put to that cost. Parliament was put to the cost of actually doing this as a separate process. Submitters who were opposed to it had to submit twice. Having already submitted once on this bill, they then submitted on the local bill.

In the end it was shown, to the satisfaction of the select committee, and to me, despite protestations from those on the other side, that it was properly endowment land rather than reserve land. But I am interested in the Minister telling the House how much money was lost by the Waitaki District Council and its ratepayers because of this delay.

The thing about Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bills is that they come around, my understanding is, about once every 7 years. What happens is that they are supposed to be non-controversial. About once every 7 years there are enough changes to warrant a bill and a piece of legislation going through the House, and here we are. But, as Mr Parker has alluded to, and I think the Minister for Land Information alluded to this in her second reading speech—it was not in her first reading speech, because the Minister who gave the first reading speech was actually the Hon Richard Worth, who departed this House a while ago, I believe. The thing is we are now 7 years on from when this was introduced. So one thing I would not mind knowing from the Minister is whether she is going to put any Supplementary Order Papers forward, and whether there are any other parcels of land that should actually be included in this, because my understanding is we are about due for another piece of legislation along these lines, which will include all the other changes that councils and various local jurisdictions will want included in a piece of legislation.

The last thing we really want to do is actually delay legislation another 7 years, for a whole raft of reasons. First of all, it is the reason that Mr Parker outlined. If, in fact, this is causing economic cost to any sort of local authority for undue reason, then we need to mitigate that risk, because the last thing we want to do is impose even greater costs on our local councils. But the other reason is it is not good legislation. I mean, the legislation in itself is not bad, but what I mean is it is bad process. To have a bill like this on the Order Paper for 7 years—and let us hope that after the Committee stage it is not going to languish for another couple of years, because it might be Kelvin Davis who gives the third reading speech as the Minister, if it is in 2017. But anyway what I am trying to say is we need to get this piece of legislation through the House. One of the things that, again, my colleague Mr Parker talked about is the economic cost.

You know, when I look at the list of reserves and lands affected, obviously the first one is the Auckland Art Gallery development. At the time it was a development, but even at the time it was retrospective. The thing about this piece of legislation that we all acknowledge—and I do not blame the Minister for this, because I think there were even two or three Ministers before this current Minister who were in charge of this. But what was acknowledged was that this was not a good way. This is not good process in terms of allowing these chunks of land to be passed on to other ownership. The Auckland Art Gallery development—what this was about was that the Auckland City Council proposed to amend the definition of “Albert Park” so the Auckland Art Gallery could be extended. Now the Auckland Art Gallery has already been extended. I am assuming the ribbon has already been cut, so I do not know what would happen if this piece of legislation did not go through the House. I mean, we are supporting it. It will go through the House. But I am just saying that retrospectively is just not a great way to do it. In fact, I think at the time the mayor was John Banks. I can imagine the conversation that went on in the council chambers. He would have gone “Don’t worry about it. We’ll just whack it in a Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. They come up about once every 7 years. It does not matter if it is retrospective; it is going to go through anyway.”

Well, again, we cannot have this sort of legislation going through retrospectively, because what it actually does is it perverts the course of democracy. By that I mean those who were opposed to anything in this bill—and I think there were around 30-odd submissions. I was not on the Primary Production Committee, but I think there were around 30-odd submissions. It is very difficult to present a submission against a piece of legislation when the process you are actually objecting to has already taken place. This is very much the case in this piece of legislation, and the Minister will be well aware of this, as are other members on the select committee. A number of the submissions were to do with the Auckland Art Gallery. Submitters came and they knew it was pretty much a waste of time. I do not mean that in a disrespectful way, but it was a waste of time their submitting on something that had already occurred. This is the problem we get into when we are looking at retrospective legislation, because it just rankles when it comes to the whole democratic process.

There were a couple of other things. The Auckland volcanic cones land—what happened here was that the Department of Conservation wanted to amend an Act so decision making in relation to volcanic cones in Auckland is with the Minister of Conservation, not the Governor-General. There were a number of concerns about this, because the department believed that if the decision-making process was given to a Government Minister, then what may end up happening is Government policy may end up having sway, when in reality what we need is an Order in Council from the Governor-General—[Bell rung]

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I have already called Stuart Nash.

Thank you very much. Actually, I am very pleased that the Minister is going to address some of these concerns. Like I said, the Minister does a good job in this area, so I am very keen to hear her contributions.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: What?

In this piece of legislation—that is all; not in the other stuff. But on the volcanic cones land, as I was saying, what we did not want to end up with is a situation where a Minister of Conservation had pressure put on him or her by other Ministers of the Crown to undertake or to allow or to permit an activity to be undertaken that perhaps played into Government policy as opposed to what the community actually wanted. That was actually quite controversial.

Dunedin Octagon land—that was simply the case of the Dunedin City Council proposing to move a restriction regarding the erection of structures in the Octagon. That was non-controversial. It went through. Everyone understood what the council was trying to achieve there and everyone backed that. The Kahurangi National Park—again, this is the classic case of why we need these sorts of bills. The Department of Conservation just wanted to formalise the realignment of State Highway 6 through parts of the Kahurangi National Park. It will have gone through all the right processes—[Interruption] No, no, Mr Twyford, this was totally non-controversial. It went through the right process. This is the sort of thing we need to do every now and again to make sure that we are delivering the services to New Zealanders that New Zealanders expect.

But then Mr Parker talked about Lookout Point. This was controversial. I know that the cost of the land was severely discounted because this legislation had not gone through; the Waitaki District Council could not offer title. The other thing I understood—and I am not too sure whether I should be saying this, but someone did send me an email saying “You’re speaking on this …”—there was a perceived conflict of interest here. I might be out of line when I talk about this, so, yes, I am going to be a little bit careful. But someone said to me that when the local MP put up a bill to actually make sure this did go through the Reserves and Other Lands Disposals—well, a member’s bill, actually—her husband was the lawyer at the time, and there was just an impression there was a slight conflict of interest.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, no, well, you are right. You should steer well clear of that sort of reference, and just come back to what you were talking about.

OK. The Māhinepua Bay reserve land—I think one of my colleagues might be talking about this because he knows a lot more about this. It was slightly controversial and there was a level of disquiet, actually, when the bill was presented, and I think there is a Supplementary Order Paper in place to actually withdraw those clauses—the Minister might know that—from the bill itself. Marlborough District Council—this was the Picton office land. This goes back to a 1903 transfer of the Picton office land and removes an antiquated interest on the title of the land. Again, this is the sort of clause that is in these sorts of bills that come to the House once every 7 years. I do not know how many of these things have been backed up. This goes back to 1903. That was a long time ago. I do not think even Winston was in the House back then. He might have been, but I am unsure. So it goes back a long time, and every now and again these things come up. I suspect that more and more and more of them are going to come up as councils are challenged to have a look at their balance sheets and say “OK, what is necessary, what is antiquated, how do we upgrade everything.”, because the level of governance requirements on local authorities is getting—I would not say more onerous, but ratepayers and the Government are expecting a higher level of engagement and a much greater level of accountability. So I suspect we are going to see a lot of these clauses where 1903 pieces of legislation or 1903 transfers or similar instances are going to need to be remedied, just to bring them up to 21st century standards.

The next one was the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board land. I had some slight concerns about this and I spoke about it in my second reading speech. This was where the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board wanted to remove any caveats around five titles of land the board holds. The caveats around these pieces of land were that they could be used only for district health board purposes. I was really unsure—and I had a good look at a lot of the material behind this—why those caveats existed. I suspect that what happened was that this land was given or bequeathed to a district health board in times past and part of the condition of that bequest was that the land could be used only for health purposes, otherwise the land would return to the owner or to the Crown or something along those lines. But, like I said, I am unsure, and my investigations proved fruitless, to be honest. It would be quite interesting to know. I doubt whether the Minister has the background on this, because it is quite specific. It would be interesting to know whether that is the case, because the last thing we would want to do is to get into a situation where two or three generations ago specific land was bequeathed for specific purposes—

I wanted to just take the opportunity to address a couple of the issues that have been raised. As members before me have said, Reserves and Other Lands Disposal bills are non-controversial. For those who are listening, it might seem unusual that there are so many different parts of New Zealand that are affected by a bill like this. There are two other ways that this sort of tidy-up work for the status of parcels of land or land titles can be enacted. It can be through a Statutes Amendment Bill. It can also be through a local bill, as the Hon David Parker explained with the Lookout Point land. But I do want to emphasise that they are generally non-controversial. They do go through a full select committee process, though, and I want to thank my parliamentary colleagues across the Chamber who participated in the select committee process. I thank them for their efforts, and I also thank the officials who have got us to the process today.

I did want to just clarify something, though. Two Opposition members have spoken about Albert Park. I just wanted to put on record and very clearly state the issues surrounding this. The Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill does not retrospectively approve the Albert Park development. This is not a retrospective validation of Auckland Council’s actions, because no validation is needed. There is no legislative change that has been, or is required, to authorise the Albert Park redevelopment. So, simply, what is happening with the clauses in this bill is that the management of Auckland Art Gallery will have less administrative difficulty in terms of operating the gallery as it is.

Clearly, anything that is beneficial to ratepayers and reduces some of the unnecessary administrative burden for councils is good for all ratepayers. So I did want to put on record very clearly that this is not a retrospective validation of the process that Auckland Council went through. I think it is fair to say that in the select committee process some concerns were raised by members about the process that Auckland Council undertook, but I do want to reinforce and put on the record that this is not a retrospective validation of Auckland Council’s actions.

I thank the Minister for Land Information. It is always much appreciated when the actual Minister is in the chair and able to answer questions. Yes, this is a bill that has been around for a long time, but in my short call I would like to talk a bit about Supplementary Order Paper 206, which is in Mr Williamson’s name. That Supplementary Order Paper is really important because it deletes provisions that the Primary Production Committee recommended be inserted. Those provisions would have allowed the Far North District Council to privatise the public esplanade reserve at Walls Bay in Ōpua. That would have allowed Mr Schmuck and his boatyard to take over much of the reserve for commercial boatbuilding. It has certainly been a long-running saga, which the Hon Damien O’Connor spoke about in an earlier reading. It has been in and out of councils, the Department of Conservation, and the court, and it has been to the Ombudsman. That saga has been largely because Mr Schmuck has wanted not just the right to move boats up and down the slipway in the reserve but also the right to, effectively, monopolise it for his boatbuilding business by doing waterblasting, by repairing boats there, and by generally using the reserve as part of his business.

So the Green Party has stood alongside members of the community in seeking to protect the esplanade reserve and public access to it. These esplanade reserves are important as part of the concept of the Queen’s Chain and ensuring that there is public access along rivers, lakes, and the coast. The Walls Bay Esplanade Reserve at Ōpua is an important part of the Bay of Islands walkway. There has been quite a lot of concern in the community at Mr Schmuck’s efforts to privatise it. I think that in one of the local media stories I saw, one neighbour pointed out that it is very difficult for people to go picnicking in the reserve if there is the waterblasting of a boat occurring alongside. It makes the whole area quite unattractive for public use. We were really concerned by these clauses being inserted in the bill because, potentially, they were setting a precedent for other business operators to seek to take over public lands, and esplanade reserve, and use those for their businesses. Maiki Marks, in her advocacy, called it a “modern-day land grab”.

So we are very pleased that the Supplementary Order Paper has been tabled and that it does delete these clauses from the bill. Certainly, the Department of Conservation was prepared to grant easements to allow boats to move across the slipway, but Mr Schmuck seems to have been quite litigious, and not been content with that, and wanted to challenge that at every opportunity. I think now we have the Mayor of the Far North District Council, the Hon John Carter, seeking to assist Mr Schmuck to get consents from the district council. I am not clear whether those have been granted, but it seems that it was his advocacy at the select committee that resulted in the clauses being included in the first place, so we are very pleased with the Supplementary Order Paper that removes them from the bill.

We are happy to support the bill, even though it does make a number of small retrospective changes to areas like Punakaiki, where land is being taken for a road opposite the Pancake Rocks walk. That is now being removed from the park. Similarly, other areas in Westland Tai Poutini National Park and Kahurangi National Park have also been taken for road widening. But I would be interested whether the Minister in the chair has any further information on where the Schmuck saga is up to, because it has certainly taken up quite a lot of time of this Parliament and other agencies. But we are very pleased that that is not going forward in the bill. Thank you.

I rise to take a brief call in this Committee of the whole House, as we debate the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. It is a brief call because, in a material sense, not a whole lot has changed since we debated the bill at its second reading. During that debate, I gave notice that New Zealand First would be seeking to have the bill either withdrawn or sent back to the Primary Production Committee for re-examination, in the light of what is, effectively, a new age since it was first introduced to the House. New Zealand First opposes this bill, but we might be persuaded to support it if it were returned to the select committee where it might be able to be refurbished, as it were, in line with everything that has changed since the 49th Parliament first considered it back in 2009.

I say that because, as it stands, this bill is simply a mess. I go back to what the Hon Dr Richard Worth said about it during the first reading on 5 March 2009: “This bill has no fewer than 58 clauses covering 17 items.” Well, it did, but it does not now. I look at the Supplementary Order Papers relating to it. Of the two that have survived, between them they cover no fewer than 21 of those clauses, which are variously amended or deleted altogether. And there will be more. Of that we can be quite certain. Even with the Supplementary Order Papers as they are laid out, passing this bill in its present form—after the passage of so many years, with the loss of all the institutional knowledge and memory of all the fine members who were on that original select committee, who have now long since departed this House—will cause only as many problems as it solves. When I suggested during the second reading that the bill be withdrawn on the grounds that there was nothing so pressing as to require its passing, given the lack of priority that has been afforded it over these past 6 years, that drew the ire of some of the members from the Government side, who proclaimed, rather indignantly, that it was important for the people whose lives it had the potential to affect. Mr Parker, obviously, touched on that.

Well, that may be so, but obviously it is not so important to the Government that it has been bothered to do anything about it for the equivalent of two entire terms of Parliament. Now that it is finally going to do something, it is a safe bet—15 will get you 20—that they are going to get it wrong. I say that because of the sheer number of inconsistencies with existing legislation, as it has evolved over the years that this bill has languished on the backburner. Some of them we examined earlier; some are addressed by the Supplementary Order Papers that we have before us. I say again that there are going to be more. I say to the House: send this bill back to the select committee and let us make sure that we have everything right before we pass it into law and then discover all of the things that remain wrong with it, because when that happens, we will be revisiting it again, anyway.

I say to the House: is it not more sensible and a better use of the taxpayers’ coin—better in the long run, for the people whose lives are going to be affected by it—to get it right once and for all, rather than to just close our eyes and press the button and hope, knowing that in all probability there will be issues still unresolved and problems unsolved and things left uncorrected in what is now a rather tatty and outdated bill? Actually, my erstwhile colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor is the last man standing from the Primary Production Committee of the 49th Parliament, which has brought us this far, essentially. Everybody else who has had input into this bill is gone. Their knowledge, their memory, is not available to us.

In previous elements of this debate, we have touched on the Auckland Art Gallery and the volcanic cones, the Lookout Point Reserve in Ōāmaru, the Dunedin Octagon, the Port Chalmers Bowling Club, and the Otago Aero Club. These new Supplementary Order Papers include matters pertaining to the Wairau Hospital site east end, the Marlborough District Picton office land, the Māhinepua Bay reserve, some other reserve land in the Far North District near Ōpua, and the Waikumete Cemetery in west Auckland. So, by my basic maths, that is something like 11 of the 17 original items heralded by the good Dr Worth, and 21 of the original clauses that are either amended in some way or deleted altogether. And there will be more; I will bet the farm on it. In fact, I would bet the average National member’s mortgage on it—if, in fact, I was certain that they even had one. So I say to the House, once again, for the sake of the people whom this Government concedes may be affected by this bill, whose lives may be affected by it: let us get it right. Let us send this bill back to the Primary Production Committee—or, indeed, another committee altogether—and have a fresh set of eyes across it, because 6 years is a long time, and another 6 months to ensure that all of the bugs are actually ironed out is probably a worthwhile investment, under the circumstances.

As things stand, New Zealand First cannot support this bill, for the simple reason that we believe it will still contain undiscovered mistakes and we do not believe that it is responsible for Parliament simply to rubber stamp legislation into law with our eyes clamped shut and our fingers in our ears, just to make the thing go away. If this bill is to be done at all, it needs to be done right. The way to ensure that is to let a new set of eyes go over it and bring it up to date so as to make sure that we are not simply making things worse. New Zealand First does not support this bill.

I intend to take a slightly different, in fact a directly opposing, view to the previous speaker, Richard Prosser. This bill is non-controversial, and it does need to be passed through the House. I do take on board what the previous speaker said, but some of these things date back many years—back, in fact, to the Picton Institute Act 1864, which had some land set aside for the Picton Institute. In 1903 that land was transferred to the Borough of Picton, and that was done illegally, as it turns out, because the last member of the trust that had that Picton Institute had died. So that land was transferred illegally to the Borough of Picton, which is now under the Marlborough District Council, which is a unitary authority. So it has been many years—that occurred in 1903—and here we are today, many years later.

I suspect that in many cases these councils have discovered only relatively recently that these errors occurred, and they are trying to get them tidied up. I take the view that the previous select committee—most of whose members, as has been pointed out, are no longer in Parliament; all except for one, I believe—did a good job on this bill. They put a lot of thought into it. The fact that they are not here today does not mean we cannot pass this bill through the House. There were several proposed amendments to this bill—nine by the Department of Conservation, six by local authorities, and one each by the Ministry of Transport and the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board. They all show a need to deal with these issues, and the clauses in this bill actually do deal with them.

I turn now to the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board. It has recently upgraded its buildings and, as part of this, applied to get some of its land dealt with under this bill. It has gone ahead and done its work, but the caveats on those titles really do constrain what it can and cannot do. Some of the board’s land is in French Pass and it was for a district nurses’ reserve. When that occurred many years ago, of course, transport was rather difficult. Now there is no need for a district nurses’ facility in French Pass. Although there are a good number of people who live out that way, and on Durville Island, they do not need that land now. It really is difficult for the district health board these days to deal with that piece of land, unless the relevant piece of legislation is fixed.

I have looked right through the bill, and I believe the clauses are all relevant. I do not see any particular issues with the clauses. Although I was not on the Primary Production Committee, I really do think all the members on that committee gave the bill due consideration. I think the bill is needed. We need to deal with it today, and as result of that I commend it to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Tēnā koutou katoa. I am happy to stand in support of this bill. Obviously, we are in the Committee stage, and I want to acknowledge, I guess, the Primary Production Committee, and acknowledge a colleague of ours, the last man standing. He was so last-standing that he has got himself a yellow card and is not in the Chamber this afternoon, but I do—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! You cannot refer to the absence of members.

Apologies, Mr Chair. This bill is referred to as an omnibus bill, which is provided for under Standing Order 262(1)(e). I will refer to it as a “ROLD” bill. It attempts to make changes to a land status that cannot otherwise be dealt with easily. “ROLD” bills deal with authorisations, transfers, and validations of matters relating to Crown land reserves and other lands held for public or private purposes. Such bills can be used to correct historic oversights and errors, or to clarify and simplify issues regarding land status, particularly when determining whether a certain use or method of management is legally permissible.

I too want to note that this bill has been around for a long, long time. We did see that it was first introduced in 2008, but I think it has a sort of earlier introduction. I understand it is a mechanism to gather up parcels of land to move them to where they are most appropriately set. However, I note that it first was introduced in the House in 2008, and that the select committee—when I look at the lists of select committees, many of the people have gone—reported back in 2009. Like previous speakers have said, it is supposed to be a non-controversial bill. I guess the question I have, and hopefully the Minister could answer, is that there has been a 7-year lapse between the reporting back of the select committee in 2009 and where we find ourselves today. I query whether there are other land parcels around the nation that are worthy of being considered in this particular bill. I support my fellow member on the select committee, Richard Prosser, in probably asking whether it is timely to reconsider the bill for that very purpose—whether it has actually picked up existing parcels of land since then.

I want to draw the Committee’s attention to a part of the bill that talks particularly—and my colleague Peeni Henare might probably talk about this, given that he is from this area—about the Mahinepua Bay reserve. We note in Part 2 of the bill that clause 22 talks about the background of the reserve, what has occurred with this parcel of land, and that “the reserve land forms part of the bed of Mahinepua Bay. The land, formed by accretion, is a narrow spit just above mean high water mark. (2) In 1995, the Māhinepua Bay reserve land was declared a local purpose (esplanade) reserve under the Reserves Act 1997 … In accordance with a notice in the Gazette (2005) … it is currently administered by the trustees of the adjoining Māori reservation, Māhinepua B1 Block, known as the Māhinepua B1 Māori Reservation. (3) The Māhinepua Bay reserve land is accessible only over the foreshore or the Māhinepua B1 Māori Reservation.” It notes that “The local community (including local Members of Parliament, local authorities, iwi, local hapū, community representatives, and the trustees) wish the Mahinepua Bay land to be a Māori reservation for esplanade purposes for the common use and benefit of the people of New Zealand.”

Clause 23(4) of Part 2—and this is the part that particularly drew my attention—states: “The setting apart of the Mahinepua Bay reserve land as a Māori reservation under subsection (1)(a) must be treated as if it had been made under Part 17 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 and the requirements of that Part of that Act had been satisfied.” As we all know, consultations with iwi Māori around the country have just concluded.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you very much, and I rise to take a short call on this, the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. I thought it only fair, given my name had been called out several times in the previous speeches in the Chamber. It is no coincidence that this morning the House had the second reading of the Te Hiku Claims Settlement Bill, and why I mention that bill is the place that has actually just been referred to, Māhinepua Bay. The bay of Māhinepua is an absolutely fantastic place; I come from there, and it is steeped in history and also in archaeological history. It is a site of significance, and Māhinepua is a beautiful place.

I want to talk directly about that in terms of this particular bill, the reason being that this morning, after having the second reading of the Te Hiku Claims Settlement Bill—and we know that Ngāti Kahu have some reserved rights within the Te Hiku Claims Settlement Bill—I just wondered about, with regard to this particular bill, as my colleague Meka Whaitiri has already mentioned, clause 23(4), which says: “The setting apart of the Mahinepua Bay reserve land as a Māori reservation under subsection (1)(a) must be treated as if it had been made under Part 17 of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act”. I have got some questions around that, and the reason for that is that, with regard to the Te Hiku Claims Settlement Bill and, I guess, the rights of Ngāti Kahu to this particular part of the land, I wonder why the bill—and even Supplementary Order Paper 206—mentions about removing Māhinepua from the Reserves Act and puts it into, invests the interest into, a Māori trust for the benefit of all New Zealanders. I wonder what implication this will have for the rights of Ngāti Kahu in light of the recent debacle around the right of first refusal, and I just wonder whether the Minister at some point in time or, certainly, the Committee can answer that question for me with regard to Māhinepua.

Secondly, and I speak about these issues because I know about them, the other one is, of course, as mentioned by my colleague from the Green Party Eugenie Sage, around the Ōpua esplanade reserve land. It has had a troubled past and it has trod along a very rough pathway to this point in time. There are still some questions about it. The questions that have certainly been raised already relating to the Ōpua esplanade are around the actual use of that place as a reserve for the public there. There are concerns that this particular legislation on that particular block of land in Auckland is actually extinguishing the rights of some of the people and, indeed, the public there in Ōpua. One of the reasons that is significant to me in particular is that it was my grandfather who placed a pouwhenua on the land there, actually right next door to that particular esplanade, stating the claim of mana whenua of the people of the Taumārere River to the place in Ōpua. So it is a site of significance, and I wonder whether this bill is actually another cheap attempt—because this Ōpua issue has been debated for decades now—at shifting, as the bill already mentions, one of those hard blocks of lands or those hard areas to deal with. Sadly, I do not believe that that actually deals with the issue, and that is of great concern to myself and the people in and around Ōpua.

I do want to mention my auntie Maiki Marks for her dedication to this particular cause. She has fought this all the way here, into the Primary Production Committee, into the Chamber, and in the halls of the local council in the far north; she has dealt with many members of Parliament, and this particular piece of the legislation, like I say, does not seem to deal with the issue but is just moving on with the responsibility. That is a concern, as mentioned there, around the Ōpua esplanade reserve land. Kia ora, tēnā koe.

There was something that the Minister Louise Upston said when she was answering a couple of queries that I am not too sure about. What the Minister actually mentioned is that in this bill there are three clauses that deal with the issue of the Auckland Council, Albert Park, and the Auckland Art Gallery. What the Minister said was that this bill does not retrospectively grant the Auckland Art Gallery or the Auckland Council any rights that they did not have. I am a little unsure about this, and it is a shame that the Minister is gone. I may be a little bit confused. I am only a simple boy from the regions—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You can’t refer to the absence of a member.

Oh, sorry. I was just referring to it—I apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, no.

OK. The Auckland Council wishes to extend the Auckland Art Gallery, which is sited on freehold land, and it wants to extend it into Albert Park. What it says here, in clause 7(2), is: “The land over which that extension is sought is— (a) part of the reserve known as Albert Park;”, and I am not too sure how the Minister could say that this is not retrospective, because this legislation does actually empower the Auckland Council to erect the Auckland Art Gallery on part of Albert Park. So, to me, that is a little retrospective. The reason I say that is that in clause 7(3) it says: “The Auckland Improvement Trust Act 1971 prohibits the alienation of the whole or any part of Albert Park.”; hence, the reason why we are doing this.

I would just like to mention some of the things that a couple of other speakers mentioned before. Mr Prosser mentioned that New Zealand First cannot support this bill because it has to go back to the select committee. This bill has been around for 8 years, and it needs to be updated. I see merit in that argument. The argument for that is something I mentioned earlier. This has been around for a long time. We are about due for another piece of reserves and other lands disposal legislation—as mentioned, every 7 years. The argument against that is, of course: just let us get this thing passed. Let us get it out there, and then let us start the process of another bill, which will go before the Primary Production Committee before too long. The reason why it will go before the committee before too long is, as mentioned, that these things come up about once every 7 years, although, of course, the National speaker Stuart Smith almost contradicted himself when he stood up and said: “Let’s just get this through. There’s something that’s been on the books for, I think, 150 years, or there since 1903, and we’re just correcting a mistake that was made 112 years ago.” What I would say to that is: “Well, if they’ve been waiting for 112 years, what’s another 12 months?”. Obviously, it is not vitally important, because if it were, then successive generations of mayors would have forced this through a lot sooner than 2015. I suspect that in 1903 they did not expect that it would still be on the statute in 2015, let alone still being debated in Parliament. I do not know who the MP for that area was back then.

There are a couple of things I would just like to dig into a little bit deeper, to see whether I can gain a little bit of clarity on this. Clause 10 deals with the Auckland volcanic cones land. The background to this is that if anyone wanted to undertake any sort of earthworks in land that abutted one of the volcanic cones or that affected the nature of one of the volcanic cones, then what they had to do was actually seek the permission of the Governor-General. They had to seek “express authorisation from the Governor in Council”—now the Governor-General by Order in Council. What this clause says is that this has to go to the Minister of Conservation now, and this is on the recommendation of the Department of Conservation. What it says is that it is no longer appropriate for the Governor-General to make this sort of, almost, micro-decision. I get that; that sort of makes sense. But my question, I suppose, is: why would it go to the Minister of Conservation? Why would they not just say that instead of the Governor-General having to make this decision, let us put it in the hands of the Auckland Council, because the Auckland Council, for all intents and purposes, in my understanding, is responsible for the management of the Resource Management Act, which, as we all know, covers any sort of activity that alters the shape of land. It used to be the regional council; now it is the Auckland Council.

So, again, this just creates another anomaly in the governance of Auckland and in any area associated with any sort of earthworks in Auckland. Ordinarily, if you abut a volcanic cone and you want to put a garage up or a tennis court or whatever, you would assume that you have to go to the Auckland Council to get a resource consent. And you might have to—I am not sure. But what this says is that you actually have to then approach the Minister of Conservation.

Thank you, Mr Chair; I should have asked for a continuance the last time I was on my feet. I go back to the clause that I was talking about when I was last on my feet—clause 23(4), in Part 2. I started my contribution with a question—which maybe the Minister can answer—around the current review of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. Subclause (4) talks about having met that test, in relation to Mahinepua Bay reserve land. The Government is currently reviewing Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. Consultations were completed just recently. I attended them. My point in raising this in the context of this bill is to ensure that whatever we are doing in relation to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act aligns with what we are being asked to consider in relation to the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill.

It is a major piece of work that is currently being promoted by this Government. I can assure the Committee that in the four consultation hui that I attended in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, with over 400 people in attendance, they did not see any value in rewriting Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. I raise this simply because we make note of this Act in this bill, and like many bills that have correlations or references to other bills, we want to make sure that they are fit for purpose and future-proof, and that they achieve what this bill is trying to do, which is perhaps to fix some of the parcels of land that we have noted in this bill and ensure that they are used for the purpose for which they were intended.

I am keen to hear whether the Minister is able to give some assurances to the Committee that there will be a seamless alignment between what we have been asked to consider in this bill and what is likely to come before the House later in the year, in terms of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act review. I would be keen to hear from the Minister, particularly about what that review is intending to do with the concerns of Māori landowners throughout the country. I would be keen to hear from the Minister in the chair, Nicky Wagner, as to whether she has a response to that. Kia ora tātou.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for a chance to speak to Part 2 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. In this week of all weeks, it is very strange for a Wellington-based MP to come to the defence of the Southland and Otago regions. But I did want to point to clauses 56 and 57, which pertain to the Winton Racecourse, which is, I believe, about 50 kilometres north of Invercargill. Clauses 56 and 57 do change the ability of the Minister of Conservation to appoint trustees to the Winton Racecourse trust. At the moment, it is possible for only three trustees to be appointed to the trust, and the change in clause 57 says that the Minister of Conservation cannot appoint fewer than three or more than five persons to the Winton Racecourse trust.

As racing spokesperson for this side of the House, I understand that there are moves afoot to try to consolidate racecourses around the country. Winton Racecourse, being the fine harness racing venue that it is, may be one of those that could be earmarked for, I guess, what you could call “consolidation”. If the Minister in the chair, Nicky Wagner, could possibly enlighten the Committee as to why the move has been made to change the structure of appointing trustees to the Winton Racecourse trust, that would be useful, because I think that the locals, who have waited for a considerable amount of time, I understand, for this piece of legislation to get to this stage, would want some certainty about the future.

I do not know specifically, because I was not on the Primary Production Committee, which considered this bill, and I am not sure whether the select committee considered in any great depth the Winton Racecourse parts of the legislation, but I think that that local community—a regional community that has been neglected by this Government—would prefer to know what is afoot at Winton. As I say, I do not know. I grew up closer to Addington racecourse in Christchurch—another very good harness racing venue—but I think it would be useful if the Minister in the chair could enlighten us, in terms of clauses 56 and 57, pertaining to Winton Racecourse, as to why that appointment process in particular has changed and whether the parcel of land that we are talking about, around the Winton Racecourse, will remain as it is. I understand that it is the venue for a rather large race meeting in the summer—one that contributes economically to that local community. If that is one of the courses affected, I guess there will be a question mark or a cloud over it.

One question that may be asked is why this piece of legislation is changing the trust, or the board, of that racecourse? It may make it easier for the rationalisation of racecourses to be done, and that racecourse, in particular. Maybe the Minister in the chair could enlighten us about that, because I think racing communities around the country, not just that racing community, would be very keen to hear whether or not the Government is going to support a programme to change the way in which the network of racecourses is made up. I think there are a certain number of challenges that racecourses, racing boards, and thoroughbred racing boards around the country face in order to make sure that their sport is strong. I think there will be some question marks around this, as to whether or not it means that racecourses like the one at Winton could be sold off and what their future is. Just to finish up, it would be useful if the Minister in the chair could enlighten us and take a few calls on clauses 56 and 57.

I would like to take a brief call, in particular around clauses 7 and 48. I just want to cast my mind back to what must have been the first reading in the House in 2009. I did not really know what the omnibus bill was. I was just told it was non-controversial and to talk. So I did, and I do not think I made particularly much sense. I basically repeated the lines that it was non-controversial and we should just get on with it. I was surprised when Sue Kedgley, a member of the Green Party at the time, then stood up and tore a few strips off me. I would be interested to know what the Green Party’s position is now.

She said, actually, that this is not necessarily non-controversial. She said that you cannot take something like clause 7, which refers to the Auckland Council extending the Auckland Art Gallery—the land over which the extension is sought, which is part of the reserve known as Albert Park and is vested in fee simple in the Auckland Council under the Auckland Improvement Trust Act—and then have clause 7(3), which goes on to say that the Auckland Improvement Trust 1971 prohibits the alienation of the whole or any part of Albert Park. I took her point, really, that we should not just pretty blithely say that it is OK for us just to fix up these mistakes. Auckland Art Gallery wanted to extend itself out into Albert Park, and for that it just overturned the Auckland Improvement Trust Act 1971, which prohibits any alienation of the whole or any part of Albert Park. I thought that she made a very good point at the time.

The same goes for clause 48 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill, which is about the Waikumete Cemetery. It says: “(1) The Waikumete cemetery land is a part of Waikumete Cemetery. (2) Waikumete Cemetery is Crown land classified as a local purpose” site, and then in clause 48(3), it says: “In 1995, the Waitakere City Council, without lawful authority, disposed of the Waikumete cemetery land to a local authority trading enterprise.” We should not just skip over that as if it is non-controversial, because you cannot have a council just dispose of some land, without lawful authority, to a local authority trading enterprise, because that local authority trading enterprise in turn subdivided the Waikumete cemetery land and sold it to private owners as fee simple titles. So most of the land that was part of the Waikumete Cemetery has now got houses and flats and whatever built on it, when, really, it was given for the purpose of a cemetery.

So I would just like to make those two points. We can stand and say: “Look, this is an omnibus bill and it is non-controversial.”, but the reality is we are talking about land that was gifted for one purpose and now, by this bill, is going to be flipped over and used for another purpose. Just again, I would like to acknowledge the lesson I learnt back in 2009 from the Green MP Sue Kedgley, who said: “No, don’t just treat this”—like I say—“blithely, or like it really does not matter, because it does matter.” We have to really give due regard if we are going to actually change the status of land that has been given for one reason, and change the purpose and use it for another reason. Thank you.

Kelvin Davis made some very interesting points in his speech, and one of those was that we cannot accept that this is, in fact, non-controversial just because a member has said that it is non-controversial. He brought up some really good points, and there is one that I would like to bring up also, and that is clause 32, which talks about the Braemar Hospital site. I alluded to this in my second reading speech, but what it says is: “Braemar Hospital Site A freed of endowment and reservation”. Clause 32(1) says: “The endowment affecting the Braemar Hospital Site A is cancelled.” The concern that I have about this is, first and foremost, what led to the endowment of this parcel of land to the hospital, and if it was actually endowed by a private citizen who wanted to ensure that that land was used for health purposes only, I wonder whether there is, in fact, any documentation at all that says—which is often the case—that if the hospital board sells off the land or if it uses it for anything other than health purposes, then the land must return to the original owner or to the descendants of the original owner.

When I see this sort of thing, it does concern me slightly to wonder whether we have gone through the correct process, because, of course, the last thing that we want to do is end up back in Parliament trying to compensate retrospectively some descendant of the original owner who endowed it to the hospital site. We go down to clause 33 where, again, it says “Braemar Hospital Site B freed of trust and reservation”. Again, I ask the same question—and the answer may be completely innocuous—and that is: has the proper process been followed by the hospital board, in terms of consulting those who put this land into reserve or endowed it at some point in time?

The other thing that is also interesting is clause 39. This is one of those bills where you could look through every clause and say: “OK, that sort of makes sense. We get the reason why they are doing it.” But, again, it is about proper process. As I mentioned, the last thing that we want, or the last thing that the Port Chalmers Recreation Reserve wants, is to end up in a situation where there is a piece of legislation that has validated what they want to do and then they find the original deed of gift, or something, and say: “Oh, goodness me, we were supposed to offer this back.”, and the only remedy to that is actually to bring it back to Parliament or to have a member’s bill or something that allows for compensation. That is a worst case scenario. I am not saying it is going to happen, but I am just saying that it would be good to know whether the proper process has been followed.

If we look at Port Chalmers Recreation Reserve, what has actually happened here is that a parcel of land was granted as a reserve to the Port Chalmers Borough Corporation—which I am assuming does not exist anymore—as a domain in trust, with the restriction that the land cannot be sold or leased. But what happened was that in 2001, despite that prohibition, the Port Chalmers Borough Corporation actually leased the land out to a bowling club.

💬 Kris Faafoi: Lawbreakers.

Yes, so a bowling club was put in place, and this comes back to my whole point around the process. It would not have done this to be disingenuous, and it was not trying to be devious in any way, shape, or form. I am assuming all that happened is—well, I am making an assumption about what happened—that it did not understand, or it did not know, that this restriction was in place and so it granted a lease.

💬 Kris Faafoi: Just give them a hand.

Yes, and what happened is that at some point in time, someone was going through a whole lot of documentation and said “Oh goodness me, we weren’t allowed to do this. We’re going to be in a little bit of trouble here. Let’s put this into a reserves and other lands disposal bill.” just to bring it in line with the legislation, so that it is not doing anything illegal and so that an illegal activity is not still on the books. We get that. We are not saying that this is the wrong thing to do, but what it does highlight is that it is very easy—well, not very easy; what does happen at times is that local body authorities, or hospital boards, or even the Crown, which are often acting in good faith, are unaware without doing a little bit of research that these sorts of prohibitions exist. So what happens is they grant a lease, or something along those lines; a bowling club is established at great expense; and, technically, what could happen is they could say “So, we made a mistake. The lease is void because this was done under an Act of Parliament. Therefore, the land has to be returned to the original owner.”—i.e., the Port Chalmers Borough Corporation at that point in time. We do not want to see that happen, and that is why we have these bills, but I am just saying how these sorts of things can actually occur here.

So what we are doing now, with this piece of legislation, is we are saying that the lease was granted—[Bell rung] Mr Chair?

I am sorry, but the member has used all his calls.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 206 in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 88 in the name of the Hon Louise Upston to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.