Point England Development Enabling Bill

We are looking forward to a good debate this evening on the Point England Development Enabling Bill. If I may, I will use this first call to set out a bit of an overview of Labour’s position on the bill and our views, which we will set out in much more detail in the course of the debate. The bill deals with a section of land in Tāmaki in east Auckland, the Point England recreational reserve. It comprises 45 hectares of land, which we are going to discuss in some detail—the past, present, and future of this land. It is, in our view, a much-loved public recreational reserve needed for future generations.

What this bill does is cut across the Resource Management Act (RMA) and the Reserves Act. It revokes the reserve status of 11.69 hectares of the reserve and it legislatively compels Auckland Council to rezone this recreational reserve as mixed urban housing. So it takes a large chunk—about a third—of what is one of the most precious expanses of waterfront urban parkland in our country’s biggest city and plonks right in the middle of it a housing estate, and it cuts across, as I was saying, the RMA and the Reserves Act to do that. We will make clear in the course of the debate that we believe this presents an unacceptable loss to the community of a highly valuable public asset and a recreational asset that currently includes sports fields and a walkway and various other recreational facilities. It is used regularly by thousands of people in the community, and I think that explains why public feeling has been running so high in the community about this bill.

The other argument that we will explore is the precedent that this bill sets in Parliament by cutting across both the RMA and the Reserves Act to take away public parkland. It has been described by both Auckland Council’s governing body and the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board as setting an unfortunate precedent. In revoking the reserve status of the land and cutting across the RMA, it denies the public—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is in a different part. What you are talking about is in Part 2. We are on Part 1.

Sure. It denies the public the normal rights of participation to have a say.

So we will go into more detail on those things, but let me just make a couple of comments about some of the provisions in Part 1. There is an interesting cast of characters, which we are going to get to know a lot better, listed in clause 3 in Part 1—the interpretation clause. Auckland Council looms large in this debate. It is the owner of this land on behalf of the people of Auckland. Auckland Council has had quite a lot to say about this bill, and we will be hearing more about that.

I suppose it is worth just taking a moment to think about the descriptions of the different land parcels that are listed there. Point England Reserve, as I was saying, is 45 hectares of land. Clause 3 talks about “development land”, which is the 11.69 hectares that the Crown, through this bill, is essentially taking out of the reserve and turning over to housing status. So what that leaves is a parcel of land on either side of the so-called development land, which it refers to as the “remaining reserve land”. We will talk a bit more about that, because there are amendments on the Table that I think are very interesting in directing, some would say—we would say “micro-managing”—the Auckland Council as to exactly what it should do with land that it owns. I think that a theme that we are going to be returning to in the course of the debate is this highly intrusive micro-managing of Auckland Council and its administration of this recreational reserve land, cutting out the community that lives around this reserve.

The other character in the cast that is listed in the interpretation clause in these provisions is the “Housing Act Minister”. That character is particularly important in this drama because I think that he has brought to this bill a number of attributes that have become consistent with the style of his tenure as environment Minister and building and housing Minister.

What we are seeing, I think—and I want to quote from a presentation that was made at an environmental law conference yesterday that cited this bill. It talked about the fact that this bill is an example of an ongoing trend towards tinkering and ad hockery and towards the erosion of the rights of access to environmental justice, a contempt for conventional RMA due process, which appears to have become the norm under this Government—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I mentioned to the member before that anything to do with the RMA is in Part 2, so I will ask the member to come back. Part 1 has three clauses, and so I ask you to tighten it up and just concentrate on the substance of Part 1.

Sure. Thank you, Mr Chairman. If I could just cite the source of that reference before, it was Simon Berry, who is a senior partner in the environmental law specialist firm Berry Simons.

The other provision in Part 1 that I thought was interesting and worth commenting on—and it might seem trite—is clause 4 in Part 1, which says that “This Act binds the Crown.” Students of jurisprudence will know that the default position is that legislation does not bind the Crown unless an enactment—a bill like this—expressly provides that the Crown is so bound, and that is contained within section 27 of the Interpretation Act. But the practice that we have with our legislation in this Parliament is that unless there are good reasons for it not to do so, legislation ought to bind the Crown. That makes sense.

The great irony in that provision in the context of this bill is that this bill might bind the Crown, but when it comes to binding, it is not the binding of the Crown that is so offensive to the public about this bill; is the binding by the Crown of the local community and of Auckland’s democratically elected representatives through their local council, including their local board, because this one of the most intrusive, micro-managing, unwelcome bills that we have seen for a very long time. That is why it has been characterised by one of the leading environmental law specialists as an example of the kind of ad hockery that has become the norm under this Government. Thank you.

It is my honour to stand and take a call in this, the Committee stage of the Point England Development Enabling Bill. At the moment, we are looking at Part 1, clauses 3 to 5, and I am really just going to, at this point, focus on one particular aspect of the Green Party position. We are abstaining on this legislation. While we absolutely support Ngāti Paoa’s visions and desires for their land and the rightful return of it, we also know that this bill is absolutely flawed and that there are deep concerns—valid concerns—that we have heard.

I wanted to pick up particularly on Part 1—I think it is clause 4—which goes through the various participants of the bill. It is the Crown. I wanted to pick up on Part 1, clause 4, which says this bill is binding on the Crown. One of the considerations that the Green Party has had to think carefully about is how this relates to the Treaty settlement of Ngāti Paoa, and the Crown as a character specifically mentioned in Part 1 was something the Green Party has had to discuss. While this bill is not specifically Te Tiriti legislation itself, the binding part on the Crown enables the Treaty settlement of Ngāti Paoa to happen, which in turn enables the visions for housing development from Ngāti Paoa to happen.

Keeping still on Part 1, clause 4—on the binding on the Crown—part of our concern about this bill is that it is absolutely allowing Minister Nick Smith to catch up and try to paper over the lack of building of affordable housing, which has been missing for far too long. We recognise that, but what we also recognise is Ngāti Paoa’s wish to be able to develop housing on their own land. For the Green Party, I acknowledge that what this bill gives an opportunity to do is rectify the original injustice, which is the fact that this was always Ngāti Paoa land in the first place.

So it is binding on the Crown. While the legislation does not specifically mention Te Tiriti o Waitangi, we understand that a letter from Chris Finlayson to the Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust dated 13 October 2016 makes it very clear that there is an understanding that this land will be used as part of Te Tiriti settlement. While the Green Party has maintained that Treaty settlements themselves are not a form of justice, what we are wanting to uphold is Ngāti Paoa’s vision to develop housing on their land. The part that binds the Crown is a good-faith agreement and an understanding, also shown by that letter from Minister Chris Finlayson on 13 October 2016, that that is what this land will be used for, and in particular, the nearly 12 hectares put aside for housing development.

I wanted, in my first call, to address this particular point, which holds some credence for the Green Party, which has always preferred to support Te Tiriti settlements. But what we understand is that this is also a roundabout way to allow the Minister Nick Smith, on the Minister’s agenda, to try to catch up with the lack of housing that has been provided, particularly for Auckland. So we are in this position of abstaining, through wanting to support Ngāti Paoa and through recognising that this legislation, while not strictly Te Tiriti legislation, upholds and binds the Crown in respect of keeping aside that part of the development for Ngāti Paoa housing legislation. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you very much for this opportunity. First, can I just acknowledge the presence of Hau Rāwiri in the gallery, who, as the representative for Ngāti Paoa, is keeping a close eye on this particular bill as it proceeds through the House. I take the point they made in their submissions, which is that everything that Ngāti Paoa has done has been premised on aroha, pono, and tika. I think that is an important point, because as we debate this bill I think we will see some transgressions on the part of the Crown with regard to aroha, tika, and pono and to making sure that all those players who are community stakeholders and everybody across this particular issue were actually engaged with those principles in mind.

I just want to go to clause 3, “Interpretation”, and the definition of “Housing Act Minister”. If you look at the Housing Act 1955 it is actually very clear, but if I can, I will express to the Committee the confusion in the public with regard to who actually is the housing Minister and who is dealing with the issues of housing in Tāmaki-makau-rau. We have seen so many different roles made, and so many different actors and players from this Government, in the role of housing in Tāmaki-makau-rau, I wonder whether or not there can be questions about the interpretation of that.

We know, for example, that the Hon Dr Nick Smith has been leading much of the conversation on this, yet when other questions are asked about social housing, they are passed on to another Minister. If we read through the content of this bill, which we will get into a little bit later on in Part 2, we cannot help but question whether or not some of those interpretations can be blurred, or can be a little bit questionable, and we hope that we can return to the principles, as I mentioned, that bring Ngāti Paoa into the gallery here again today.

To clause 4, Part 1—my colleague Mr Twyford made a very good point around the “Act binds the Crown.” He mentioned in his contribution the need in terms of the engagement with all stakeholders. What the Crown is actually doing here, in this particular bill, is binding all of those stakeholders. Some have had a small voice on this particular issue and others have had their voices heard multiple times on this issue. Some are more vocal than others. I want to support Mr Twyford’s contribution on that, in saying that those are some of the concerns that we have with regard to the interpretation. From my understanding of the bill—and once again this will go to Part 2—it actually binds other stakeholders in this particular bill, in and around Point England.

There is not much more to go through on Part 1. I just want to reiterate the point about those principles of tika, pono, and aroha, as mentioned constantly by Ngāti Paoa. I also want to just touch on, once again, the definition of the “Housing Act Minister” and where exactly the roles of the Minister sit in this particular development from beginning to end. The content of the bill talks about social housing. Well, we know there is actually another Minister for social housing. Questions in the House on the one issue seem to be split across three and sometimes four different people. That is another point that I wanted to make in this contribution. Of course, finally, the other one is around the “Act binds the Crown.” and what that means as the bill progresses. I look forward to getting into Part 2, where I know there is substantial debate to be had. I will close my conclusion here.

Thank you for the opportunity to take a call in the Committee stage of this bill. Along with my colleagues in the Labour Party, we are of course rising to speak against this bill. I might say it is not with any great sense of pleasure, because we thought this was a bill for which there could have been a good, mutually acceptable outcome. But an unwillingness to engage with the issues has led us to a point where we have no choice but to oppose this bill.

Part 1 is a very important part of the bill. My colleague Phil Twyford gave an excellent and pretty thorough account of some of the key terms that are defined in clause 3, “Interpretation”. There are just a couple of those that I want to delve into a little bit more to ensure that as we commence this debate we have all got a really good understanding about what we are actually talking about in respect of this bill. A couple of the key parts of the interpretation that I want to home in on, and reference a couple of the submissions here as well, are, firstly, the significance of what is termed the “Auckland combined plan” and, secondly, I want to delve a little bit into the definition of “Point England Reserve” itself, which is the subject, the heart, of this piece of legislation.

Let us turn, firstly, to the term “Auckland combined plan”. It is defined here in clause 3 as having “the same meaning as in section 116(1) of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010”. Of course, that was one of those pieces of legislation—and there are a number of them—that established the Auckland Council when we were going through that large amalgamation exercise. The “Auckland combined plan”, as defined in section 116(1) of that Act, is defined as a plan that means “the combined document described by section 122”. If we go to that section, it tells us that the combined plan is a document that “Auckland Council must prepare, implement, and administer … that meets the requirements” of being “(a) a regional policy statement for Auckland: (b) a regional plan, including a regional coastal plan … (c) a district plan for Auckland.” It is, in the common parlance, the Auckland Unitary Plan that we are referring to here.

The reason it is really important that we just pause and reflect on that a little bit is that that is the central planning document for the Auckland region. That region—of which, until recently, I was an elected member—has just gone through a massive planning and public consultation exercise to determine the planning rules that are in the Auckland Unitary Plan. It was a heck of a difficult exercise for Auckland to bring that together, but we got there in the end and came up with a document that allows for future growth and that balances the cultural and social and public open space needs of the community. That is what we are referring to here, in the interpretation clause—the Auckland Unitary Plan.

One of the really big concerns that we have on this side of the House is that having gone through that exercise and got to the goalpost of the Auckland Unitary Plan, this piece of legislation rides roughshod over parts of it. Instead of going through the careful processes in the Auckland Unitary Plan to determine what housing should go in what location, and at what level of appropriate density, we simply have a legislative fiat that comes down on top of that. That really concerns many of us in respect of the fundamental principles of democracy and community participation.

The second aspect of the interpretation clause that I want to touch on is the Point England Reserve itself. We should not lose sight of that in this debate. Of course there are political feelings in this Committee about this issue, but we are talking about a much-loved piece of reserve land, and I believe it is incumbent upon us that that piece of reserve land is given due respect. We listened to the people of the community, who actually care about that reserve land and care enough to really engage in this process. I was standing up in a community protest about this issue earlier this week, and the people of this community have come and they have submitted. They have given their views, they have engaged with their parliamentarians, and sometimes they have not been listened to. I do not think they have been heard well enough.

I just want to reflect on one of the submissions that was received by the Local Government and Environment Committee. This is the submission of Helen Momota, who is a very passionate member of that community. She spoke about Point England Reserve, which is defined here in the interpretation clause. She talks about how important it is to a growing community. She said that “When I enter Point England Reserve from Point England Road, the great expanse of flat green land is so inviting. It engenders a sense of freedom, offering so many possibilities—to feel the grass beneath your feet, to dance and sing with joy, to breathe in lungfuls of sea air, to watch the seabirds wading and soaring,”—yes, they do soar, apparently. That is what this bill is about. A growing community—and this community will grow under the Auckland Unitary Plan—needs that precious open space. I hope that we pay credence to that in the remainder of this debate.

I am going to take a brief call, because I have leave this evening for an important meeting in Nelson and had not counted on the special debate earlier, but I wanted to respond to some of the questions that had been made on Part 1 of this bill. Can I too acknowledge Ngāti Paoa in the gallery, who came to me back in 2015, proposing that a pragmatic response to their Treaty issues, and to the issues of housing in Auckland, was to utilise some of the 18 hectares of land that has, effectively, been grazed for 60 years.

💬 Hon Members: Nonsense.

The members can say it is nonsense. The grazing lease that currently exists goes back to 1977. I am advised that when the Crown first purchased the reserve in 1945, there was grazing right from that date. So the essential question for the Parliament is: when we have high levels of need for housing in Auckland, should we have 18 hectares of valuable prime land just 12 kilometres from the CBD being grazed by cattle? I am repeatedly challenged by members—the likes of Michael Wood, who screamed through the by-election that housing is the biggest issue, and then spends the other part of his time opposing the very houses that the city of Auckland needs, exposing the double standards of members opposite.

I want to refer quite specifically to the 45.4 hectares of Point England Reserve land that is referred to in Part 1 of this bill. This is land that was paid for by the Crown. This is not land that was paid for by the Auckland Council; it was paid for by the Crown. It is my view that where the Crown has paid for land it is entitled to use it for broad public use, including the settlement of the Treaty claim with Ngāti Paoa, and to use land for the use of homes. I know members opposite object to homes being built. They want to make a big issue of housing, but they just oppose the practical construction of homes. Effectively, Labour’s position is that it does not like cows in other parts of New Zealand, but it likes them on the Tāmaki reserve—it does not want homes constructed.

Can I respond very specifically to the question from Michael Wood. He argued and said that the Auckland Unitary Plan, which is referred to in clause 3 of this bill, should have considered the use of the Point England Reserve for housing at that time.

💬 Michael Wood: I didn’t say that at all.

You said that was the proper time when it should have been considered. The member does not even understand the law. It would have been unlawful for the Auckland Council to consider zoning that land for housing in the middle of the Auckland Unitary Plan process—unlawful—because it was a recreation reserve.

The final point I would make—and I know it is in the next part—is that I have tabled Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 321 in my name. I am not going to have the opportunity to be here this evening. It simply responds to two key concerns. Members opposite have said: “But how can you guarantee the grazing will end?”. Well, we have introduced an SOP to make that plain. They have said: “How can you guarantee that the recreation land and playing fields will be retained?”. Well, we have said: “Let’s make that plain and put it in the law.” So it just shows bad faith that when Labour members have raised concerns—the likes of “How can you guarantee you’re going to stop the grazing? How can you guarantee that there is not a retention of playing fields?”—they now scream that that somehow undermines the position of the Auckland Council.

The Government is acting with good faith. The Government is keen to resolve the Treaty settlement with Ngāti Paoa, and we respect their spiritual association with the land. The Government is keen to get housing, and what more practical place to build housing than an area that has been grazed by cows for 60 years. It is put to far better use with the plan that has been put forward by Ngāti Paoa.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I also acknowledge Ngāti Paoa in the gallery. The Point England Reserve is a magnificent piece of land on the Tāmaki estuary. It is unusual because it is public open space right on the coast. With the huge intensification of settlement that we are seeing in the Tāmaki area—partly through the Tāmaki Regeneration Co. and the State houses there that are being bowled and then redeveloped; partly through areas like Stonefields—there is going to be an increasing demand for people to access open space, and particularly access the coast. A lot of the submitters on the bill, when they talked about the Point England Reserve—which is in Part 1, “Preliminary Provisions”, in clause 3—talked about the value of that area for recreation and to get the replenishment of spirit that being under the sky, next to the sea, enjoying the birds, and enjoying the open space enables.

Minister Nick Smith has talked a lot about the 34 cows that graze on the Point England reserve. Some people said that they enjoyed seeing farm animals so close to the city. Others recognise the potential of the reserve in the future, in response to the growing intensification, to actually cater for those needs for a regional park. Indeed, the Auckland Council identified the reserve as having regional significance in terms of being so close—12 kilometres—from the CBD, yet being a coastal reserve that is similar to other coastal reserves like Long Bay, which are so valued by Aucklanders for their open space and passive recreation values. The fact that it is used for cows grazing now protects its options for the future. But this bill, the Point England Development Enabling Bill is all about overwhelming the Auckland Council and its decision making, and circumventing the Auckland combined plan in terms of the rezoning that would normally happen under the Resource Management Act, where land that is currently zoned as open space is rezoned as mixed urban residential for housing.

The Green Party, as Marama Davidson mentioned, is abstaining on this bill because we strongly support the right of Ngāti Paoa to have their land go back to them. But, again, because this bill talks about the “Housing Act Minister”, it is not giving Ngāti Paoa self-determination in terms of the way they use their land. It is the only way that they can get their land back. The letter from the Hon Chris Finlayson from 13 October made it very clear that the Crown had certain preconditions that needed to be met, and if those preconditions were not met by Ngāti Paoa, then the Crown would be able to offer this land to another party—not just another iwi party, but potentially another developer. So this bill—and clause 3, with its reference to the “Housing Act Minister”—is all about enabling Nick Smith to sidestep and circumvent normal legal processes under the Resource Management Act and the Reserves Act in order to have housing built on the reserve.

So that is why we are only abstaining on the bill, because it does allow the land to go back to Ngāti Paoa. If this was a Treaty settlement bill, there would not be these preconditions on how Ngāti Paoa could use the land. They would have the right of self-determination to determine whether they wanted to use it for housing or whether they wanted to use it for other purposes. So it is very much about the Minister for housing determining what should happen to the land, and that is the reason we are not supporting it—because it sidesteps the usual legal processes.

💬 Denis O’Rourke: But you’re abstaining. Not supporting means voting against.

Yes, we are abstaining, Mr O’Rourke, because we can see the different factors at play in this bill—that it is the only way Ngāti Paoa can get their land back. But we are concerned, and I have a number of Supplementary Order Papers to try to ensure that the community, which has had such a strong interest in the progress in the progress of the bill, actually gets the opportunity to have a say in terms of the housing development that happens on the land, because the remaining reserve land, and the Minister—

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate on Part 1 of the Point England Development Enabling Bill. I really want to focus on two preliminary provisions under the interpretation clause. The first is about the definition of “Auckland Council”. It “has the same meaning as in section 4(1) of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009”. Essentially, that section says that a unitary authority has been established under section 6 of that Act. So Auckland Council, therefore, has the responsibilities, duties, and powers of a regional council. What do regional councils control? They actually control the use of land through policies and rules. The rules are about determining what activities can occur, and they are either permitted, prohibited, or they may be “other”. The “other” are controlled, discretionary, restricted, or non-complying activities. Essentially, what this particular clause does is empower Auckland Council as a unitary authority that is responsible for long-term planning.

I then want to focus on the “Auckland combined plan”—which is referred to under the interpretation clause—which “has the same meaning as in section 116(1) of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010”. What that particular section does is, as described by section 122—and I think my colleague Michael Wood highlighted that—provide that Auckland Council has responsibility for developing a regional policy statement, a regional plan, and a district plan for Auckland. That is what it has done. The involvement of local boards and communities in that process means that Auckland Council, to all intents and purposes, has a formal operative plan.

What this piece of legislation is attempting to do is change that operative plan. Under normal circumstances that plan change actually has a very specific process. That public process requires research, evaluation, and consultation. That consultation has to include the community. It is vital in that process that there is pre-consultation, notification, and submissions by the community, and that the steps in that plan change process—there are actually nine of them.

I am not going to outline what all nine are, but the fundamental one that is being transgressed within this particular piece of legislation is the requirement for a section 32 Resource Management Act (RMA) report. That section is “Requirements for preparing and publishing evaluation reports”. What that section says is that that RMA section 32 report must—must—“examine the extent to which the objectives of the proposal … are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of [the RMA]”. The purpose and principles of the RMA are, in section 5(1), “to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.” Subsection (2) of the purpose is “… which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety—”.

We would contend that what this bill actually has done by making it a Treaty bill is transgress that process, which would normally have enabled communities to have gone through this process to change the Auckland Plan. So that is what this particular part of the bill has outlined and empowered the Auckland Council and the Auckland combined plan to do. I would like to know from the Minister in the chair, Scott Simpson, the justification for subverting what would otherwise have been a full process that would have enabled communities to have a say.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! I just want to just reinforce that what we are doing here is debating Part 1, which is about interpretation. That is where you started. Now the member is moving into a Part 2 debate. This is very tight. Part 1 is about the interpretation of these phrases, and, obviously, clause 4 binding the Crown, and clause 5 is transitional, savings, and related provisions. So we will not be able to be having a Part 2 debate during the debate on Part 1. I would just remind members that this is a tight part of the bill. It is only a small bill. I realise that it is very contentious—people have got a lot to say on Part 2—but can we just keep it to the parts that we are debating. At the moment it is Part 1, so it is about interpretation.

Thank you, Mr Chair. That is really why I highlighted what the interpretation clause actually meant in terms of “ ‘Auckland Council’ has the … meaning”, which then makes it a regional council—well, the same designation as a regional council. That is why the relevance of the Auckland combined plan having the same meaning as in section 116(1) of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 is vital. Within that context, it actually sets out an incredibly prescriptive process for altering a district plan, which is what we have. This bill completely undermines the process that the Auckland community has gone through to develop its local plan.

The point that I make in bringing it all up would have been a thorough assessment about the piece of land that we are talking about—I mean, Point England has been a reserve since 1945. The qualification for it to be a reserve comes from the Reserves Act. The lands that are included in the Reserves Act have been acquired for their conservation value. They have also been acquired for their recreation value and for their education value. By defining these parts in the interpretation, what I am trying to highlight is that the same processes that should have been employed—because we have had, to all intents and purposes, a plan change—have not actually occurred. So we have completely undermined the ability of the community to have a say. I think it is important that we note that.

The other aspect of the community not being able to have a say was actually because the Crown, even though it has not noted it in the bill—because it was and is to be used as commercial redress for a Treaty settlement for Ngāti Paoa, the council, which should have engaged in consultation with the community, and the local board, which should have engaged in consultation with the community, actually did not do so because of the confidentiality of it being a Treaty settlement. I have particular issue with that because nowhere in this bill—nowhere in this bill—does it mention Ngāti Paoa, does it mention Treaty settlements, does it mention rights of first refusal, or does it mention Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki-makau-rau.

So, because of that fact, we have actually subverted a very structured process in terms of the plan change that would have been required if Auckland Council had have initiated this redefinition of this piece of reserve land, this piece of recreation land, in the first place. You would not be able to do it. What I am highlighting is that because of those interpretations that the Government has put in this legislation—I want the Minister to answer why he thinks that this piece of legislation should not have gone through the robust process that it should have gone through, based on the meaning of section 116(1) of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010.

If it had gone through that process, as I have highlighted, there would have needed to be a section 32 RMA report, and inherent in that report would have been consultation with the community, which would have enabled the community to challenge what this legislation is trying to do, in fact, which is to alienate reserve land, recreation land. They are lands that actually, when you look at the history of the Point England Reserve, include 25 hectares of a tāhuna tōrea, which is a specific reserve within Point England Reserve that the locals created in the 1980s, when there was talk of having a residential marina. In fact, the community, led by activist Ronald Lockley, persuaded the council—persuaded the council—to create that wildlife reserve. All of that history attached to this piece of land has been completely negated by what the Crown has done, so we on this side of the Chamber can see why the people have not been taken with the Government.

I have got some other things that I particularly want to bring up, because the reality of this legislation is that it actually stems back to Budget 2015. It is about the $52.2 million capital contingency fund that was created to facilitate the development of housing on Crown land. That is what this bill is really about. It is about that initiative that the Government created in 2015. Kia ora.

Mr Chair, tēnā koe. I would like to talk to Part 1 and, in particular, the definition of “development land”, which means “the land that is 11.6921 hectares, more or less,”. I have read here in the regulatory impact statement “Ngāti Paoa interests”. It says: “Historically Point England was an important Ngāti Paoa kainga or settlement. Missionary reports written prior to 1840 record extensive settlement and agriculture in the area.”

So the question is how historically important was this bit of land? Was it historically significant or important? I would say the answer is probably yes, but probably no more historically significant or important than any other bit of land within a 1,000-kilometre radius of Point England, because let us understand this: when Māori arrived here in whatever date it was—you know, we differ on the exact date—within about a hundred years or so of settling in any particular area, every rock, every hill, every valley, every river, and every nook and cranny was given a name everywhere. Wherever there was a flat bit of land, it would have been used for settlement or for cultivations. This bit of land is probably no more important or historically significant than the land that is a No. 8 wire - width away from it in the Tāmaki redevelopment project, because Ngāti Paoa would have settled there, they would have had their kāinga, they would have had their māra kai—their gardens. They would have named points of interest. People would have lived there, people would have been born there, people would have died there.

It would have just been a typical Māori kāinga, no more or less historically significant than any other bit of land in New Zealand Aotearoa at the time. So what makes this 11.6921 hectares more important than any other bits of land? Well, it is quite simply this. There are no houses on it—there is no nothing on it. So it is the only bit of land within cooee that the Government can use to fix up its housing crisis.

Sadly, this 11.6921 hectares is going to be needed within 20 years for the purpose that it has now—that is, a recreational reserve—because in 20 to 30 years, the population of Auckland is going to double, and where on earth are the kids in 20 years’ time going to run around and play? Is it in the corridors of their townhouses—their three-story, four-storey, and five-storey townhouses? You know, we—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I interrupt the member just to reiterate what I said to the previous member when she was on her feet. This debate, under Part 1, is about interpretation. It is not about where the kids are going to play; it is about interpretation. It appears to me that the member who currently has the call is debating a Part 2 clause, and he should come back to clauses 3, 4, and 5, which relate to this part. I recognise it is very tight, but if you want to get on and run the debate that you are wanting to run at the moment, then let us move on.

The Point England Reserve is what we are talking about. The Point England Reserve, meaning “the land that is 45.4259 hectares,” and the development land in particular, which is 11.6921 hectares—that is what we are talking about. It is the use of that land, and the use of that land is going to change significantly. The use of that land—

Order! No, we are not talking about the use of that land. We are talking about the definitions that are there. Just because it happens to mention that land area or that piece of land, it does not then give licence in this part of the debate to take the debate where the member wants to go. This is about definitions and interpretation in this part of the bill. I recognise it is going to be controversial, I recognise a lot of people are going to want to speak on it, and every presiding officer is aware of that. But the debate that the member is running at the moment is not cognisant of what we are debating under Part 1.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Otirā, e ngā mema o Te Whare, tēnā tātou katoa. Mr Chair, I am happy to talk and take your advice about being specific on Part 1. I am happy to take a call—a very short call—on the Point England Development Enabling Bill, on Part 1, clause 3, and there are three particular definitions there that I do want to make some points on and perhaps get some answers from the Minister in the chair. That is where we talk about development land, under clause 3, and you will see that we talk about “ ‘development land’ means the land that is 11.6921 hectares, more or less, being Section 1 Survey Office Plan 503726”.

The words that get me and that spring out at me the most are those words “more or less,”. I could understand if we were in this House and it was 1817, or even 1917, when our tools of measuring the extent of the land would be under enormous pressure. But we are in 2017, and now we have got laser beams that can be so precise that it is either 11.6921 hectares, or it is not—or it is not. So my question to the Minister is why do we have “more or less,” in terms of “development land”? Why is there a need for “more or less,”? Do we not have confidence in our surveyors having the necessary tools to get that precise? I do not know, but that is a concern because, of course, 13.5 acres—or we could even go up to 30 acres—is still consistent with that term “ ‘development land’ … more or less,”. So I think it is a decent question to ask the Minister in the chair, as to why there is the need or the requirement to have a qualifier that is as long as a piece of string on those three simple words “more or less,”.

Then we go on to the next definition in clause 3, where we talk about the “Point England Reserve”. Again, we say it “means the land that is 45.4259 hectares, more or less,”—“more or less,”. There it comes again—that term “more or less,”. I think it is a really good question to ask the Minister in the chair. Why have we not got specificity around the acreage or the hectares required for development land? Clearly, what is remaining is what could be the Point England Reserve. There could be many of us, I am sure, in this Committee who might think that actually it might be all of the reserve that now becomes development land, because under this definition in clause 3 that is how I read it. Am I the only one who is reading it that way? So I think we do need to say actually that it is just 11.6921 hectares for the development land—end of story. We also need to say that “ ‘Point England Reserve’ means the land that is 45.4259 hectares”—end of story. And then those three words come up again in the “remaining reserve land” definition. Again, we say that the land is “32.9213 hectares, more or less,”.

Like I say, we are in 2017. We should have the tools, the expertise, and the precision in our surveyors to get what land is going to be development land, what land is actually going to be left in Point England Reserve, and what land is going to remain under the definition as remaining reserve land. That is the question I pose to the Minister in the chair, and, hopefully, he can give the Committee and give all those who are watching the debate on this contentious bill an answer as to why we have “more or less,” in the definitions of those three, under clause 3 in Part 1 of the bill. Kia ora.

I move, That the question be now put.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I will take a brief call. I acknowledge that Part 1 is not the substantive part of the bill, but, nevertheless, I thought the last speaker, Meka Whaitiri, made some interesting points about the definition of “more or less,”.

The point that I want to make is in relation to clause 3, “Interpretation”, which refers to the “Auckland combined plan”, the “Auckland Council”, and the “Housing Act Minister”. It is described in clause 4 that this is an Act that binds the Crown. What I want to say about that is that, actually, I am here tonight to mihi to Ngāti Paoa. There are things that have happened in this country that pre-date the Auckland combined plan, the Auckland Council, the housing Minister, and the Acts that bind the Crown. What happened in this country and what happened to Ngāti Paoa—I am here to mihi to them. I think that that needs to be our focus, as well as acknowledging the flaws in this bill—and there certainly seems to be some loose drafting here, which is an interesting point that Meka Whaitiri has made.

People talked in the debate on Part 1 before the dinner break about a much-loved piece of land. Let us remember who loved it first. Thank you.

I do want to just make a couple of comments on some questions that the member Meka Whaitiri asked about the interpretation of the words “more or less,” in a couple of the clauses in the preliminary provisions in Part 1. It is a long time since I studied land law at Auckland University, but, delving back into the memory banks, I can recall that actually the term “more or less,” is very standard legal terminology when it comes to land law. In fact, I would think that probably on just about every land title in the country, where there is a surveyed measurement, it will reference a point that says “more or less,”. My understanding of that is that it is historical and it is traditional. In this case, in the preliminary provisions of Part 1, the specificity of the area of land to be considered in each of the mentions of land in clause 3 goes to four decimal points. That is actually very specific, but I think that that term “more or less,” is a standard land law phrase that is used. I do not think that the member should be at all concerned about it. I think that the member can probably—as can the rest of the Committee—take some comfort from the fact that in the bill the pieces of land are measured to four decimal points in terms of hectares, so that is quite a precise piece of measurement.

I am mindful of a situation that occurred after the Canterbury earthquakes, when land actually moved and there were some issues to do with title. What was required there, rather than having a complete resurvey of the entire Canterbury and Christchurch region, was that a piece of legislation was passed in this House to account for those sorts of things. So I would like to give the member a little bit of reassurance in that regard. I do not think that there is anything in that area. I think she raises a good point; it is a worthwhile point, and I thank her for doing so.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Provisions to facilitate development