Point England Development Enabling Bill

I move, That the Point England Development Enabling Bill be now read a third time. This bill is part of the Government’s comprehensive housing plan, where it is pulling every lever available to get more housing built. It is the sort of pragmatic legislation that shows it is serious about resolving the problem. It also provides the benefits of enabling the settlement with Ngāti Paoa and a plan to enhance the amenity and recreational value of this long-neglected reserve.

Let us be clear about the housing problem in Auckland: it fundamentally comes down to a lack of housing supply and, particularly, the supply of land. Labour choked off new housing developments with its 2004 changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA) that legally locked in Auckland’s metropolitan urban limit. That saw new home construction plummet from 12,000 a year to just 4,000 a year. We have been systematically opening up that new supply through special housing areas, through the Auckland Unitary Plan, through reforms to the RMA, and through the Crown Land Development Programme. We have achieved strong growth in new home construction for 6 straight years running—the longest and strongest construction boom in the history of Auckland. But we need to keep doing more, because New Zealand is continuing to succeed and continuing to grow. Today’s America’s Cup success will just add to Auckland being successful and attracting additional people.

Opposition parties’ response to this growth challenge is to say that it is all too hard. Mr Little has even said that we should just take a breather. Our Government is focused on the solutions that will build the houses and infrastructure to support that growth, and this bill is part of that plan. Three hundred additional homes, just 10 kilometres from the city centre, are another contribution alongside Hobsonville, alongside Tāmaki, alongside Three Kings, and many other scale developments.

The initiative for the scheme came from Ngāti Paoa in the course of their Treaty settlement negotiations. This is ancestral land that is recorded as having one of the largest Māori settlements anywhere in New Zealand in the 1820s. They fairly argued that given 18 hectares of this reserve has been grazed by cows for over 40 years, would it not be a better use for it to be for housing and a marae? The proposal is very straightforward. We send the cows packing and we free up 18 hectares. We use 2 hectares of that for a Ngāti Paoa marae, we use 12 hectares for this housing development, and we add 4 hectares for additional space for recreation and amenities.

We have further committed that all of the Government’s revenue from the housing development will be reinvested into the reserve. The toilets and the facilities on this reserve are currently a disgrace. The Ōmaru Creek through the reserve is one of the most polluted in Auckland. The playing fields have poor drainage and no lighting. This is why this is such a great opportunity—300 more homes, a 2 hectare marae, enhanced facilities, and the guaranteed retention of the 8.4 hectares of playing fields. The only downside is the loss of cows.

The part I do not get, from Labour’s opposition to this bill, is why it loves cows in the centre of Auckland so much. In other parts of New Zealand its policy is that their numbers must be capped and they must reduce their numbers, but in Auckland, Labour says that cows come before families needing housing. Actually, Labour’s position on this bill so aptly illustrates the identity crisis within the Labour Party. It opposes foreign students in low-value education and has bad-mouthed low-value education programmes, and it has then run its own one so it can get some free campaign workers. It has now even become clear that it broke immigration laws. It put students up in accommodation that would knock the very standards it promotes and demands that landlords must meet. It demands that we build more houses and then on every single housing development that is proposed, it comes out and opposes it. It has a policy of limiting cow numbers, but then it defends the grazing of cows on prime land in Auckland. It pretends that it supports Treaty settlements, and then it tries to wreck the very important Ngāti Paoa initiative.

It is these constant contradictions in Labour’s position that leave New Zealanders completely dumbfounded as to whether the once-proud Labour Party today stands for anything.

💬 Phil Twyford: They’re dumbfounded by you.

It is time, Mr Twyford, to stop playing politics and get on with the work that will actually help resolve the issues.

Let me conclude by making plain the plan forward, after the passage of this bill this evening. The 12 hectares of land that will be freed up for housing will be added to the Crown Land Development Programme and negotiations will get under way with Ngāti Paoa on the detailed housing development. We are committed to 20 percent of the 300 homes being reserved for social housing and a further 20 percent for affordable housing, with 60 percent being set aside for market use. All of the funds generated from the housing development will be reinvested into the Point England and surrounding community facilities. The bill requires that the cows must be gone within a year. The playing area must be retained and enhanced with lighting and proper drainage. The creek will be cleaned up. We have also committed to enhanced habitat for local seabirds like the New Zealand dotterel. We are committed to working with the local community, Ngāti Paoa, and the Auckland Council to deliver on this vision.

The opposition from the Labour Party to this bill is truly pathetic. It shows that it is far more interested in politics than actually getting on resolving the issue of housing. The Opposition spokesperson has continuously challenged me, as he has the community, to think pragmatically and imaginatively on the issue of housing. This bill delivers on real gains in terms of additional housing. It gives real gains for amenity and recreation, real gains for the environment, and, fundamentally, it is about an area that has been grazed by cows, to which the public has had no access for more than 40 years, being used for housing.

I finally must note, in terms of the history of the reserve—because some have suggested that somehow it is council-owned reserve—that this reserve was bought and paid for by taxpayers, by all New Zealanders, and we in this Parliament have a duty to ensure that our land is used effectively. Quite frankly, having recreation reserve grazed by cattle for 40 years, 10 kilometres from the centre of Auckland, is not effective land use. That is why the pragmatic answer put forward by Ngāti Paoa is a very sensible and pragmatic solution for this beautiful part of the great city of Auckland. I commend the bill to the House.

This is a shabby bit of politics from Nick Smith in the final 100 days of this tired National Government. Why do I say it is shabby? It is because this bill is basically about Nick Smith trying to score political points. You see, he thinks that if Labour opposes his bill to build 300 houses on a city park, it somehow undermines the criticism that we make of his failed housing policy. Well, it does not, because the failure of that Minister is writ large. His bumbling failures and utter inability to do anything about the housing crisis while the hopes of a generation of young Kiwi families go up in smoke—that cannot be diminished or diverted by the pathetic little bit of theatre that this bill is. The National Government’s legacy of record homelessness and the lowest rate of homeownership since 1951 cannot be diverted by this bill—as if building 300 houses on a city park is any kind of solution to the housing crisis.

Why else is it shabby? It is shabby because Nick Smith has dragged Ngāti Paoa into his little game, and I want to repeat for the record that Labour has no beef with Ngāti Paoa. We understand and respect their aspirations: their aspirations to settle their historical grievances, their aspiration for a place to stand. They have got a deal on the table. Why would they not take it? That is why Labour will vote for Ngāti Paoa’s settlement when it comes to this House. But I say to Nick Smith and the Māori Party that if you thought that Labour’s commitment to Treaty settlement was so shallow that we would be blackmailed into supporting a classic, half-baked Nick Smith scheme like this, then you horribly misjudged us. Labour’s commitment to Treaty settlement goes back to the Hon Matiu Rata. It is solid and enduring, but it does not mean we will go along meekly with an idea that is as misconceived and short-sighted as carving up one of the most precious open expanses of waterfront parkland in the entire city of Auckland and turning it into housing.

It is shabby because Nick Smith’s political game-playing has dragged Ngāti Paoa’s settlement into a climate of disenchantment and mistrust and cynicism in the local community—a community that feels betrayed by this Minister and this piece of legislation. It did not have to be like that.

This is a shabby bill because the Government has ignored a much better alternative. Instead of carving up this precious piece of city parkland, it could instead have offered Ngāti Paoa 12 hectares of land just over the fence from the Point England Reserve for the commercial redress part of Ngāti Paoa’s settlement. It could have offered Ngāti Paoa ownership of the entire reserve on the basis of perpetual public access. It could have offered Ngāti Paoa co-governance of the land at Point England alongside 2 hectares of land for a marae on this achingly beautiful piece of land.

It is shabby because Nick Smith has peddled falsehoods about this bill, as he is so prone to do. He says repeatedly that the land is underutilised. Well, tell that to the thousands of people who turn up for the Weet-Bix Tryathlon in the park, for movies in the park, and the generations who have played kilikiti and all manner of sports on the land that Nick Smith is taking away with this bill.

Nick Smith is obsessed with the 28 cows that have been grazing on part of this reserve. He is absolutely obsessed. He is so obsessed with cows on this land that he is passing a bill that will prohibit Auckland Council from grazing animals on the reserve that it is responsible for. I kid you not. This Minister has got his meek, sheepish colleagues voting for a bill that will ban Auckland Council from grazing cows on this reserve, as well as ordering Auckland Council to replace the three playing fields that this bill obliterates with three new playing fields, when the only space left on the reserve to put these three new playing fields is on the precious waterfront headland. This Minister needs his head read. Auckland Council says that it will not get a resource consent to do what this bill orders it to do. Once this bill is passed into law, Auckland Council faces being either in breach of the Resource Management Act (RMA) or in breach of this bill. It is unbelievable.

This is shabby because it cuts across the RMA, it cuts across the Reserves Act, when those Acts have perfectly good consultation and decision-making processes for precisely this kind of endeavour. There are established democratic procedures in place for turning over reserve land for other purposes. But no, that is not good enough for this Minister.

It is shabby because this community in Glen Innes, one of the poorest and most disadvantaged communities in Auckland, needs this parkland for future generations. This community is about to get 20,000 extra people in the next 10 years because of the Tāmaki regeneration project. Auckland is going to get another million people. That is why Auckland Council came to Parliament and said that this bill is a dangerous precedent.

It is shabby because the National Government has treated this community in east Auckland—the people of Point England, Tāmaki, and Glen Innes—with utter contempt. The Government did not consult on this plan. It sprang it on the community when this bill was tabled in the House. This bill legislates away the democratic rights of that community. The select committee was timed to receive submissions over the January summer holidays when everybody was away. The local National MP Sam Lotu-Iiga claimed in this House that he had consulted his constituents and that they supported this bill, but he refused to meet face to face with local people in his electorate who are opposed to this bill. What a shame. What a shame.

National’s candidate for the seat of Maungakiekie, Denise Lee refused to publicly debate this issue—absolutely gutless. She would not even stand up publicly and defend the policy of her party taking away 12 hectares of land from the community that she purports to represent. How disgraceful. Then we have Nick Smith coming to this House repeatedly perpetrating the lie that this land is underutilised. The reason this park has had cows grazing on it is that successive councils have not properly invested in the parkland that belongs to one of the poorest and most disadvantaged communities in Auckland. And Nick Smith has the gall to come here and use that as a justification for confiscating 12 hectares of land—unbelievable.

I want to honour the people of Tāmaki and Glen Innes and Point England who have stood up and resisted this travesty. The Save our Reserves group mobilised its community against this bill, and I want to acknowledge Tsz Ho, Shaun Lee, Jen Vella, Julie Chambers, Helen Momota, Tony Watkins, and Chris Barfoot, and 4,000 other people—many of them who once voted for the National Party—who signed the petition opposing this bill.

I also want to give special recognition to Labour’s Maungakiekie candidate, Priyanca Radhakrishnan, who stood up and told the truth. She stood up for her community, unlike the members on that side of the House who take for granted their people in that community—how appalling, how disgraceful. They should be absolutely ashamed of themselves on that side of the House.

This shabby bill will be seen for what it is. It is a tawdry bit of political game-playing by a Minister who has so spectacularly failed to build houses, who has totally failed in his responsibility as the housing Minister to do anything about the housing crisis—so stung by that humiliation—that he wants to prove to the world that he can build houses even on a treasured patch of city parkland.

It is a pleasure to be talking on the Point England Development Enabling Bill at its third reading. I thought it would be useful to just go back and recapture some of the essence of what this bill is about. Some of us will remember that it is the Point England recreation reserve. [Interruption]

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member who keeps calling out, and has done throughout this debate, has just had his 10-minute call, and I would ask him not to subject the rest of the House to another 50-odd minutes of that. Thank you.

So the Point England recreation reserve comprises 45.43 hectares, and includes sports grounds, walkways, and other facilities for recreation. Eighteen hectares of this is used for grazing. The council administers the reserve together with an adjacent council-owned beach reserve of just under 3 hectares. Development of the land is actually on Crown-owned land, but vested in Auckland Council as a recreational reserve. The bill enables housing to be built by creating a new land parcel. This will be rezoned as residential - mixed housing urban, and it is anticipated 300 houses will be built on that area. The balance of the reserve, i.e. 32.9 hectares, will remain as a recreation reserve.

I understand that this bill is contentious and—a lot of passions and a lot of emotions. I was at Auckland when a number of submitters came and made submissions from that area. I have also been here in Parliament when they have made similar submissions, so I have a good personal understanding of the concerns. Personally, I have reflected on a number of the issues that have been raised and I am persuaded that this development should take place. The reason I have come to this—the first point is: is there a need for housing? I think it is absolutely overwhelming that there is; even the Opposition members acknowledge that.

💬 Peeni Henare: Build them in Hunua.

But we have got 13,000 sections being built in Hunua right now.

💬 Phil Twyford: How about building on your parks in Hunua? Go and build on your own parks.

If you just get off your bus and go and have a look, Mr Twyford—but this section offers the ability to build 20 percent of them for social housing, 20 percent for affordable housing, and the balance as market-related houses.

The second point is that we heard a number of submissions around protecting the New Zealand dotterel. A number of the submitters were very careful and made some good points, but I am persuaded by the local iwi, Ngāti Paoa, who have given an undertaking to improve their environment. I also note that there will be an environmental effects assessment, which will be required as part of the consent process.

The third point is that Ōmaru Creek, as the Minister Nick Smith has just mentioned, has the lowest water quality of the 36 monitored sites in Auckland. This is a nasty piece of water that is, really, a bad advertisement for all New Zealand, and Auckland, and it is great that Auckland Council has committed $40 million to upgrade this scheme. That will take part as part of this redevelopment.

The fourth thing is the use of the sports fields, and, again, I visited this site. I do not actually recall all the members from the Opposition being there on that visit that day, but 8.4 hectares of that is actually set aside for sports fields. We heard from a number of them and we have heard from officials that, in many cases, and during certain weather events, those sports fields are not available all the time. Part of this bill is that those sports fields in the same area will be made available not less than 12 months after the bill is passed—the 5.3 hectares of it—and the sports fields will be upgraded. Some of the proceeds from this change will actually be devoted to upgrading those sports fields.

Finally, there is the issue around whether it is fair and equitable that Ngāti Paoa should be given the opportunity to develop this land and to create a marae. My view is that I find it actually slightly condescending and arrogant for Opposition parties to suggest that Ngāti Paoa should not be seeking this as redress even though, as the Minister noted, and as we heard in the committee, they actually went to the Minister, went to the Crown, as part of their commitment to see a Treaty settlement. This land is absolutely essential to them.

So I am actually persuaded, on those five grounds, that this development should proceed. I think it is going to proceed in a careful manner. I do think it is going to protect the interests of the community but also bring about a substantial change and an increase in housing. On that basis, I commend the bill to the House.

Reo Māori, e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnei te tira ka tū, ko te tira nā Turuora, nā Rereahi, nā Korehe, nā Tūrongo; tēnā te tira, te tira oti ana! Tira ka tū, tēnā toitoi nā Haka, nā Hauā; tira ka tū, tēnā oti atu! Ko Kohukohunui te maunga, ko Pīako te awa, ko Tīkapa te moana, ko Te Haupā te tangata, ko Ngāti Paoa te iwi.

Tuatahi, māku ka rere tonu ngā mihi ki a Ngāti Paoa, ki wāna uri katoa i mātakitaki i te haerenga o tēnei pire, mai i tōna ōrokohanga tae noa mai ki tōna whakatutukitanga, ka kitea e tātau i te ahiahi pō nei. Ka rere tonu ngā mihi ki a rātou nā runga i ngā uara i whakaritea e rātau hei tūāpapa mō ngā kōrero, hei tūāpapa mō ngā mahi nui kai mua i te aroaro o Ngāti Paoa, hei kimi oranga, hei kimi hua mō ngā uri o Ngāti Paoa. Ko aua uara, ko te tika, ko te pono, ko te aroha.

[Māori language, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is the travelling party that stands, and it belongs to Turuora, Rereahi, Korehe, and Tūrongo; that is the travelling party and it is complete! The travelling party that stands and that walks briskly belongs to Haka and Hauā; the travelling party that stands is complete! The mountain is Kohukohunui, the river is Pīako, the ocean is Tīkapa, the man is Te Haupā, and the tribe is Ngāti Paoa.

The first thing for me is that the acknowledgments will continue to flow to Ngāti Paoa and to all its descendants, who are watching the journey of this bill from its beginnings right through to its conclusion, which we see this evening. Tributes will continue to flow to them as a consequence of the values they considered as a foundation for the comments and the important tasks that are before Ngāti Paoa, seeking a livelihood and seeking outcomes for the descendants of Ngāti Paoa. Those values are justice, validity, and empathy.]

Ngāti Paoa have been true to their word. Ngāti Paoa have worked with the guiding principles of tika, pono, and aroha, and I commend them for that. They made that very clear from the beginning. Those particular principles, I can say, have not been upheld by this Government. Tika, pono, and aroha in all that they did, in all that they hoped to do for their people—those principles were not upheld by this Government, and I am disappointed. I am disappointed that this particular Government has used this process to solve a crisis that it has been hiding from, ducking from, and ignoring for so long. Ngāti Paoa have been caught up in the crossfire. Ngāti Paoa, who came into all discussions with members on this side of the House and that side of the House with the principles of tika, pono, and aroha, have been bruised and have been hurt by the mechanisms put in place by this Government to see them into the housing development on Point England.

My colleague spoke of a decay of process, and that has been evident from this Government from the beginning. The scope given to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) for this particular bill was as short-sighted as this Minister. The scope given to MBIE for this bill was so limited that it shut out the entire community. In fact, the scope was so small that I am sure that the many advisers and even the Minister and the select committee were surprised to see just how many submissions were made on this bill, with most of them opposing it. They were not opposing Ngāti Paoa—not opposing Ngāti Paoa at all. In fact, they were encouraging this Government to find alternatives for them.

We offered an alternative—the Labour Party. We offered an alternative from the outset of this bill. The Government turned its nose up at it. Apparently, it knows best. It knows best! It has isolated, torn apart, and certainly left the community of Point England, Glen Innes, and Tāmaki bruised, hurt, and confused. I use all of those terms because these are the words expressed to us by that community.

This particular Government thought it was rather funny that we on this side of the House supported this bill in its first reading. We did. And it was exposed, as the bill progressed through this House—the failures of this Government.

There are a number of bills that that side of the House has supported in their first readings—some very good bills; some very good bills. In fact, one of them, funnily enough, was under the Labour administration. The Social Security (Working for Families) Amendment Bill was voted for in the first reading by that party, the National Party, only for it to vote it down through the rest of that particular bill—something about communism by stealth. Now, all of a sudden, the shoe is on the other foot. The people of Tāmaki-makau-rau are suffering from some poorly thought-out settlement mechanisms put in place across Tāmaki-makau-rau. I say that having witnessed many of those bills come through this House.

Overlapping interests—those members may beat their chests about how well they do in the Treaty settlement space. They ignored the fact that there would be people excluded, there would be people hurt, and there would be people disenfranchised. We are going to see that come to fruition under this Government in legislation of this nature. The people of Tāmaki-makau-rau deserve a housing policy that will truly see this crisis alleviated.

The member for Hunua boasted about the developments soon to take place in his electorate. I wonder whether he would agree to having a housing development built right by the falls—the pristine falls of the Hunua Range. I doubt it.

My colleague Mr Twyford has already spoken about the new park that will be established—the playgrounds and the sports fields. Well, I wonder whether, and I hope, that Minister will be there when the ball is kicked into the water, to retrieve that ball, because that is what those members are condemning the community of Tāmaki to. They may claim they have all these answers; they do not. They have failed to address this housing policy, they have failed the people of Tāmaki-makau-rau, and they have failed Ngāti Paoa. So I want to say this to my tuakana Hau.

E te tuakana, kātahi anō au ka kite atu i a koe ki roto i tō tātou Whare, e hari koa ana. I konei koe i te tīmatanga, kei konei tonu koe i tōna whakatutukitanga. Pupuru tonu koe, otirā koutou o Ngāti Paoa, ki ngā uara i whakatūāpapa e koutou i ō koutou mahi mai i te ōrokohanga o tēnei pire. Kua kōrero atu ahau mō aua uarā, ko te tika, ko te pono, ko te aroha.

Mai i a mātou o tēnei taha o Te Whare, e te tuakana e Hau, otirā, a koe hoki e Te Māngai o Te Whare, kāhore mātau e whakaae ana ki tēnei pire nā runga anō hoki i ngā uara i kōrero mai a Ngāti Paoa i te tīmatanga o tēnei pire. Nā runga i te tika, tā te mea, i hē tēnei Kāwanatanga i te hapori o Tāmaki. Nā runga ano hoki i te pono, tā te mea, kīhai te hapori o Tāmaki-makau-rau e whakapono ana ki tēnei Kāwanatanga. Ko te uara whakamutunga ko te aroha. Kei hea te aroha mō te tini, kei hea te aroha mō te mano, kei hea te aroha mō ngā tāngata katoa o Tāmaki-makau-rau?

Kāti, ka mutu atu au i konei, me tēnei kōrero atu ki a koe e te tuakana e Hau, kia kaha rā koutou ki roto i ngā mahi kai mua i a koutou. Kei konei tonu mātou me te kī atu, ā tōna wā, ka uru mai te pire tatū ai i ō koutou nawe ki mua i te aroaro o tēnei Kāwanatanga, ka tautoko mātou o tēnei taha o Te Whare i a koutou me ngā whāinga kai mua i a koutou. Kāti, e te tuakana, e Te Māngai o Te Whare tēnā koe, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau katoa.

[At last I have seen you, Hau, the elder sibling, in our House, and I am thrilled. You were here at the beginning and continue to be here at its conclusion. You, and indeed you collectively of Ngāti Paoa, held on to the values that you used as a foundation for the tasks you collectively worked on at the beginning of this bill. I have alluded to those values, which are justice, validity, and empathy.

From us of this side of the House, elder sibling Hau, but at the same time, you also Mr Deputy Speaker, we do not agree with this bill, because of the values that Ngāti Paoa commented on at the beginning of this bill. It was based on justice, because this Government erred with the community of Auckland. It was also based on validity, because the Auckland community did not believe in this Government. Empathy was the final value. Where is the love for the multitude, the thousands, and for all the people of Auckland?

And so I conclude here with this comment to you, elder sibling Hau: you collectively must be resolute indeed in the tasks that are before you. We will still be here, and add that when the bill returns with your grievances, which are before this Government, addressed, and it comes before the House again, we on this side of the House will endorse you and the objectives that are before you. Enough, elder sibling, and thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, my appreciation to you collectively and to us all.]

It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Point England Development Enabling Bill in its third reading. I would just like to take the liberty—it is the first time I have spoken in the House today, and we are talking about an Auckland bill—to congratulate Team New Zealand and to say how synonymous the waterways of Auckland are with yachting. I must say, there are plenty in the “Waimak” who will be hoping that one day we may host it off the Waimakariri coast.

This bill is a pragmatic bill. It is a bill that will ultimately lead to more housing in Auckland. What I can say is that the sign of a good bill is a bill that can learn from history, from experience, and from previous bills, and with policy development, we call it policy transfer. So when you look at the policy post-earthquake in Canterbury, we know that if you free up land, it increases supply, which equals demand. I think that is first and foremost with this bill, which is about freeing up a parcel of land that is Crown-owned but is vested in Auckland Council—about 11 hectares, which will provide around 300 houses.

We also know, from the experience in Canterbury with the Riccarton Racecourse bill, about allowing reserve land where we can build that housing—a whole range of affordable, sociable, and private houses, which meets a need for Auckland. [Interruption] So here we hear the desperate sounds of the Opposition members, who, once again, have fallen on the wrong side of the argument, because what this bill will ultimately do is deliver more housing for Auckland. I appreciate that it is contentious. No one likes development. Waimakariri is the third - fastest-growing electorate in New Zealand. There is a lot of development, and people are, naturally, anxious when developments are built close to them—we get that. But I suppose that on this side of the House, we know that it is about making tough decisions and pragmatic decisions that will ultimately benefit New Zealanders.

Another strength of this bill is the legislative process it has followed. You know, on this side of the House, the Minister and the select committee have listened to the submitters and have understood the issues around the loss of recreational land. It was great to see that there will be an acknowledgment that that recreational land will be matched, and also the environmental impact. I have full faith in Ngāti Paoa that it will put mitigation strategies in place to address some of these concerns.

Development is always tough. People get used to their environment, and when they are told their environment is going to change, naturally there is anxiety. But I think the process we have been through has listened to that and has put strategies in place to address that. In the end, this is a pragmatic bill that will produce more housing for people in Auckland, so I commend it to the House. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, huri noa ki aku hoa o tēnei Whare Pāremata, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker, and acknowledgments to you all, my colleagues of this House, throughout.]

The Green Party will be abstaining on the Point England Development Enabling Bill, and I will be highlighting exactly why we both cannot support this flawed legislation and also cannot oppose this bill. We cannot support this flawed bill because of the terrible process, which has not taken the community with it. We acknowledge the valid concerns and pains of the community over the loss of their reserve lands and recreational space. We acknowledge the lack of good governance that sees legislation sidestep, in this case, the normal democratic processes. And, in particular, we take issue—huge issue—with this being merely an opportunity for Nick Smith to seem like he is finally doing something of substance to transform the current housing crisis and homelessness situation that we are facing, when actually it is against a backdrop of ongoing shallow and failing policies that maintain the current status quo. We cannot support the bill for that reason, as well.

We cannot support the bill because we would have preferred a clearer guarantee under the legislation, such as that of my colleague Eugenie Sage’s amendment, which would have seen the land in question retained by the Crown if Ngāti Paoa or Tāmaki iwi are unable to buy it. The amendment is to prevent it from being transferred to private developers; we would have preferred to see that guarantee.

So it is fortunate for the Minister for Building and Construction that Ngāti Paoa could see that there was a small shot at doing a far better job than the Crown than this current Government has been able to prove itself to do. When it comes to doing good for their iwi and the community, they saw a chance to take up this land. How fortunate for the Minister that they are willing to do that. It is a pretence that the Minister puts up of helping. It is a pretence, because we have seen how much the Government’s help has been worth to everybody in this country. It has not helped everyone in this country. So we cannot support it, because this is shoddy work on behalf of the Crown, and we are very clear about that.

We also cannot oppose this bill. While we do not trust the Crown, we do trust Ngāti Paoa to do the right thing by the community, to do the right thing by the whenua, Te Whanake. We trust Ngāti Paoa to do the right thing by the Ōmaru Awa. We trust Ngāti Paoa to do the right thing by the tūturiwhatu, the dotterels. This is their last shot to rectify a small part of the huge injustice that was done by the Crown obtaining these ancestral lands. The ancestral land was taken in a way that was confirmed and affirmed as a Treaty breach. The breach is that in 1841, 6,000 acres—6,000 acres—including Te Whanake, the Point England Reserve, were purchased by the Crown from Ngāti Paoa. That is all of the waterfront lands, the coveted lands that today are raking in billions of dollars for developers. Those lands were sold for £100 in cash plus £258 in goods. That is £358 in 1840. If we scale that up—and here is my amazing math—to perhaps the £34,000 that it would be worth today, with inflation, those pounds in today’s New Zealand dollars would be $60,000 for the 6,000 acres. Even if I am out by 1,000 percent—OK, let us say that is $1 million today. That was the breach: the pittance, next to the fact that the customary rights that were also extinguished through that Crown acquisition were never thought to be going to get extinguished through that sale. That is the Treaty breach.

This is Ngāti Paoa’s small, final last shot at trying to make something out of something really quite small, something that is not justice at all. But this is their shot, and they are going to do the best they can because they are connected in a way that this Crown is not to that land, to the community, to the people, to the birds, to the river. While this is not strictly Tiriti legislation, I acknowledge that Ngāti Paoa need this to go through to rectify a small part of their settlement and the injustice. I acknowledge that the letter from Chris Finlayson to Ngāti Paoa in October 2016 included a good-faith written agreement to that effect, and we will want to hold the Crown to account on that good-faith agreement, because the good-faith agreements in these Tiriti settlements have always put the burden on iwi to make sure that the Crown is held to account.

I want to go back to the Minister’s speech tonight, when he talked about his dreams for the Ōmaru River. Why has it taken till now? I have stood on the banks of that river for 5 consecutive years to support the local community in trying to get something done to fix the mamae of that tupuna awa. That community effort has not been led just by local iwi and Ngāti Paoa uri; it has been the business community, it has been non-Māori, it has been New Zealanders of the community, it has been scientists it has been school children. I have stood there for 5 years in a row—I did not see the Crown. Now, for the good fortune of the Minister, I know that Ngāti Paoa will do a better job, because the Crown has not, and this is why we cannot oppose the bill.

It is 11.69 hectares of the 45.43 hectares that will be used for housing. It is still a small part of that overall reserve. I look forward to the day, and I hope—and this is a bit of a hamuhamu plea to Haydn and Hau—that we get invited to the opening of the marae that is being proposed to be built on that land, which will be for all of the community, as marae have shown. What I do not want to see is yet another Auckland marae being used to fix up the homelessness crisis. I look forward to Nick Smith actually doing his job, so that the marae in Auckland do not have to. Otherwise, someone else, from a different party, should be that Minister.

In closing, I acknowledge the plans and the visions of Ngāti Paoa that they have for this land—that they have for this land. They are going to be left with the burden of trying to heal the community division and hurt that the Crown has created. I wish them the best of luck with doing that job—and they have to. They are not walking away. They are coming into the raruraru. So I want to send the Green Party’s support for the work that they have got ahead of them, including their incredible visions to do better with the land, with the reserve, with the river, with the birds than this Crown has ever done—than local government has ever done. So I cannot wait for those. Mr Assistant Speaker, I have outlined tonight the reasons why the Greens cannot support and cannot oppose this legislation, and I thank you for putting the Greens on record for that. Thank you.

It is a very sad day indeed when this bill will pass into law—on one of New Zealand’s best days, the day we won the America’s Cup again. That is especially sad for Aucklanders, Auckland being the true home of the America’s Cup. Yet it is also a sad day for Aucklanders in that they are going to be losing such a large part of one of their best and biggest reserves—a very sad day, but also a great day, and it is just sad that this bill will blight it.

That has all been brought about by one of the saddest of all the Ministers I have seen operate in this House, and that is the “Minister of Sad” Smith. It is his Government’s totally failed housing policies that have led to this situation, driven by its hopeless immigration policies. A worse performance you could hardly imagine, and it is sad in at least five ways.

Firstly, it is sad that this Government is now so desperate for residential land and so bereft of ways to show that it is tackling the housing crisis that it is willing to do something like this. It is a sad day when the Government is willing to sacrifice such an incredibly valuable reserve, such an important area of open space so valued by Aucklanders, and its irreplaceable conservation values, which will be compromised by what is going to happen to this land—also bearing in mind the future needs of Aucklanders, as that city develops and grows, for more and more and more open space and recreation areas, especially areas of the size that this reserve is.

Thirdly, it is sad, very sad indeed, that the local people were so comprehensively sidelined from any say about the future of this land, and deliberately so.

Fourthly, it is very sad indeed that the Government has pitched local people against Ngāti Paoa by using this land as part of a Treaty settlement, but only if used for expensive residential land. What kind of settlement is it, really, when the Government says: “Yes, you can have this land as part of a Treaty settlement, but only if it’s used for housing, otherwise you won’t get it.”? “Otherwise you won’t get it.”—what kind of dictatorial settlement is that? It is not very appropriate, in our view.

Fifthly it is sad that the options for alternatives—and there were plenty—have never been properly investigated.

So it is indeed a very sad day and a very sad piece of legislation, but there is one more sadness that I will add to it. I was very sad to hear, again, that the Green Party is going to abstain from this bill because of, in my view, some utterly misplaced belief that by opposing the bill they would be opposing a fair Treaty settlement. That is simply not so—simply not so. It is also a sad day when the Greens have dimmed to such a sorrowful brown on this particular issue. In contrast, I would have to say that it is New Zealand First that has shined the brighter shade of green on this, in its unequivocal support for local people, in its undoubted upholding of their right to preserve scarce open space for sports fields and other recreational areas, and in its staunch defence of the wildlife and conservation values of the land, which the Greens apparently do not think are so important after all. Anyway, putting that aside—

💬 Marama Davidson: You didn’t listen.

I did listen, and that is the whole point. My friend over here says I did not listen, but, in fact, I listened very closely, and I was deeply underwhelmed by what I heard: an utterly confused litany of silliness that does not result in anything positive. How on earth can anyone genuinely abstain on a bill of this nature? It just does not make sense. It is just silly, and they deserve the criticism they get for it.

But the Government’s actions over this bill are not just sad; the National Government has shown its arrogance at its very worst. It has done so by treating the local community like dirt and deliberately ignoring it—deliberately ignoring it; treating the open space provided by the reserve as just some more land that we can sell and use for housing, as though the conservation and open space values do not matter at all; treating important wildlife as though it is irrelevant, to be sacrificed on the altar of poor planning and sheer Government ineptitude; and treating the Auckland Council with disdain, not only by ignoring its submission to keep the land—and that is what the Auckland Council wanted to do, as a reserve for future recreational purposes—but also by actually taking over the council’s function in determining what the remaining areas of this reserve will be used for in the future. That is not the role of Government; that is the role of local government, and those members over there should learn the difference. They do not seem to understand.

New Zealand First has always wanted more and better housing for all New Zealanders, and especially in Auckland. For that reason, it has consistently promoted policies of Government acquisition of land for housing, of direct Government involvement in land development, and of better long-term planning by both Government and local government. It has wanted to see transport-led development to avoid more traffic congestion, it has wanted to see development of modest, affordable homes on smaller sections, and it has wanted to see much better Government assistance for first-home purchasers. It has consistently said that all along, but New Zealand First would never promote any of that at the price of the destruction of such an importance piece of reserve land. It would never do that. It would never abandon the genuine and compelling interests of local people in recreation and open space, nor would it abandon high conservation values. These are prices too high to pay.

Nick Smith has shown National in its true colours: the colour of unbelievable arrogance in the way it has treated local people; the colour of gross untruth—that the land is just being used for grazing land and nothing else, as though it will never be good for anything else, when just about everyone with half a brain knows that areas of this size and kind will be needed more and more in the future for parks and reserves as Auckland continues to grow and develop. It will be needed more and more for those purposes, and a paltry 300 houses is not anything like enough to justify ruining this reserve for that purpose. Then there is the colour of deviousness, in the way that Nick Smith has used a Treaty settlement process as an excuse to rip the guts out of one of the most important reserves left in greater Auckland.

Lastly, and just as importantly, this shows something else: it shows the bad faith of this Government, in being willing not just to sacrifice this reserve but also to create an extremely bad precedent for the future. Now Aucklanders can be sure that none of their reserves—no matter how good, no matter where they are, no matter what their purposes are—will not be at risk from this Government. They will know that a reserve does not really mean a reserve when this Government can get its hands on it. They will know these things, and they will know that when a Government is as desperate as this to show that it is finally trying to do something about the housing crisis that it created, those reserves will then certainly be at risk.

It is time for this Government to actually just give up and walk away. It has been so hopeless over housing and is now willing to sacrifice reserves of this value. A worse performance by any Government over any of these issues could not possibly be imagined. This bill should definitely not pass, and this Government must not be re-elected to do any more damage like this.

I stand to take a short call on the Point England Development Enabling Bill in its third reading. I have sat here over the last few speeches in the House, and honestly, I have never heard from that previous speaker, Denis O’Rourke, so much verbal diarrhoea in my life.

Honestly, Auckland has an issue—Auckland has an issue, and it is a housing issue. We need to be able to help Auckland people to develop some housing so they can actually house some of the people who are going to live in Auckland and/or need houses.

We have this Point England area, and we have got Ngāti Paoa there, and I have heard people say in this House that the people of Point England are now having a go at Ngāti Paoa. I do not think that they are. I have heard speakers in this House saying the people of Tāmaki-makau-rau, the people—individuals in this House cannot speak on behalf of the people of Tāmaki-makau-rau; those are only their thoughts alone.

As I stand here and talk about my thoughts to do with this particular bill, I look at some of the things that are going to be happening within the Auckland region over the next few years. We have, yes—congratulations to Team New Zealand on the America’s Cup. The America’s Cup will be based out of Auckland, and this is where the competition will be. Guess whose housing and property values are going to go skyrocketing? When we start to look at the 300 paltry houses that are going to be built on the land of Ngāti Paoa, guess what? Those values are going to go boom. They are going to go boom and the people within those houses should be feeling pretty, pretty happy with themselves and the values of those houses, let alone the value and the wealth that Ngāti Paoa will be making from their decision—their decision—to be able to build these social affordable houses.

As I look around the room and I hear that some parties are abstaining from this, I too agree with the previous speaker and other speakers that, yes, you come to this House to actually give a voice to the people and to be able to vote. You make that decision—for right or for wrong you make that decision. To abstain is nothing; it does not make it anything.

💬 Andrew Bayly: But they want to be invited, Jo.

That is right, and they want to be invited to the opening of the marae.

💬 Hon Member: Really?

Honestly. You may as well just go and write your own invitation, which is quite rude really. That will be the decision of Ngāti Paoa when they open the marae; nobody else will make that decision.

As I look through some of the notes from the committee’s report, I see here that the majority of the committee recommended that the bill be passed without amendment—that was the majority of the committee; that was the result of our select committee process. The majority of the committee also recognised “the need for additional housing in Auckland, and the important contribution that this bill would make towards the finalisation of Ngāti Paoa’s Treaty settlement.” These were decisions that were discussed in the select committee and have come here to this House, were presented to this House, and I have reiterated those sentiments here, the words that came out of that select committee, in the third reading of the bill. That is why I stand here proud to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

The next call is a split call—Eugenie Sage.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Well, I stand here with a heavy heart to speak to the Point England Development Enabling Bill, because the reserve that the Minister is sacrificing for housing is not small and unappreciated, as he has tried to make out with his many references to cows grazing; it is a jewel in the Tāmaki crown. It is adjacent to the Tāmaki estuary. It is adjacent to Pt England School, Glen Innes Pool and Leisure Centre, and Ōmaru Creek. It is a reserve that is highly valued by local residents. It is used for everything from kilikiti to sports games to the Weet-Bix Tryathlon and for passive recreation and open space.

Yet, this Minister, Nick Smith, has created such division and distrust in the community because of the way he has gone about this bill and prevented the community from engaging, and because of the way—and this is where I have a really heavy heart—he has burdened Ngāti Paoa with this whole sense of distrust and division. It will not be the Minister who goes in now to try to resolve that; it is going to be Ngāti Paoa who goes in and has to deal with that because of the shambles that the Minister has created with this bill.

There is that division because of the process that has been used, through the bill, to override the normal processes in the Reserves Act and in the Resource Management Act (RMA) in terms of rezoning land for residential housing. It has created anger and a lot of bitterness about the loss of this land, which is so valued and used by the community for housing development, without, potentially, even the opportunity for the community to have a say on how that housing development happens, what sort of density it has, how it is planned, how it connects with the Glen Innes shopping centre, and how it connects with transport links, because of the changes that Nick Smith has made to the RMA, which have made it so much harder for councils to notify resource consent applications for public submissions.

This bill is also really unfair on Ngāti Paoa because it is requiring Ngāti Paoa to buy the land as commercial redress but it does not give them the right to use the land as they see fit. They have to take it on a use-it-or-lose-it basis. The preconditions for purchase include the Minister’s having to agree that the development meets the Crown’s minimum requirements for both the pace of the development, the yield, and the dwelling mix, and yet it is Ngāti Paoa who has to bear the costs and the risks. The Hon Christopher Finlayson’s letter of October last year made it very, very clear that if the Crown’s preconditions for the development were not met, then the Crown was able to offer it not just to another Tāmaki iwi but could offer it to a private developer. So there is nothing in the bill that guarantees that the land will actually go to Ngāti Paoa.

The Minister has again shown his arrogance and his failure with his last-minute changes through a Supplementary Order Paper, which once again override local democracy, impose his will on Auckland Council by requiring the council to amend the management plan for the balance of the reserve, and require that at first an extra 5.3 hectares of sports fields are created there, and then that increases to an extra 8 hectares.

So we have the Minister promising in the House that the proceeds from the land sale will be used for reserve development. What are they going to be used for? To bulldoze the best remaining area of open space on the headland, at the reserve, to create more sports fields. So the community gets nothing from that. It loses area that it values and has the Auckland Council’s ability to identify other reserves in Point England where sports fields could have been created—to, instead, supplant the Minister’s will on that. As the chair of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board said, that board normally makes decisions and plans for its parks and reserves based on community engagement. But here the Minister has substituted his decision for that of the boards and the Auckland Council. His decision pre-empts any consultation with the community. So it is setting, once again, a very dangerous precedent of legislation overriding council decision making, sacrificing this valued reserve for housing development, which the community has virtually no input into.

Ā, tēnā koe, otirā, e ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātau katoa! E te iwi Ngāti Paoa, tēnā koutou, tēnei te mihi aroha ki a koe, ki a koutou mō ō koutou mahi, mō ō koutou kaha i runga i te kaupapa whakahirahira, nō reira, kei te mihi, kei te mihi, kei te mihi.

[I thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, but at the same time, acknowledgments to us all, members of this House. I congratulate you collectively, the tribe of Ngāti Paoa, and empathise with you in your efforts and energy on the matter of significance, and so my appreciation, accolades, and congratulations to you.]

It gives me no pleasure to speak against the Point England Development Enabling Bill. The Minister came into this House and he raised two issues that this bill was intended to address. First of all, he talked about the housing situation in Tāmaki. We are all clear on this side of the House that there is a housing crisis in this country. We have the largest number of homeless and, of course, the lowest rate of homeownership since the 1950s.

Secondly, he touched on the Treaty settlement, and for the time I have got in this contribution I want to focus my call in this debate on the Treaty settlement part of this bill. As a former Treaty negotiator for my father’s iwi of Rongowhakaata, it was 8 years of hard slog acknowledging people who had gone before me and the groundwork they had set out to have a full and final settlement of our Treaty settlement.

There are three parts of a Treaty settlement. One is the historical account, which tells us about the unique breaches that individual iwi—and, in this case, Ngāti Paoa—faced at the hands of the Crown. That leads to the apology, generally to acknowledge the Crown’s breaches. There are two parts in terms of remedies that iwi look for. One is cultural redress and the second one is commercial redress.

Nick Smith and this Government say that this bill is part of Ngāti Paoa’s commercial redress, but I also heard the Minister get up in this House and tell Ngāti Paoa: “If you are going to get this commercial redress, we are going to tell you what you are going to do with it.” That is what he said in this House. He said: “Not only are we going to give you this land but we are going to tell you what you are going to do with it.”

There are very few iwi who will take commercial redress from the Crown and, at the same time, be told how to use it. So I want to say to that Minister that this is a bad deal for Ngāti Paoa, because no representative of the Crown should be telling iwi what they should do with their commercial redress in settlements.

On the Local Government and Environment Committee we had two former Treaty negotiators: me and Ron Mark. I want to say to this House that during the debate in the select committee, we did raise at the select committee that we wanted to have a look at Ngāti Paoa’s Treaty settlement. Why? Because we had two members of our select committee who had gone through the process to give assurances that every possible option in terms of commercial redress was offered to Ngāti Paoa. And what happened? We were not given that information—we were not given the information.

I want to go on record and say what was in the select committee report that came back to the House. When we asked officials “Was Ngāti Paoa offered land across the road?”, we wanted to ensure that their commercial redress was honoured by what was available in terms of commercial redress. We asked specifically, and we were advised that not only was Ngāti Paoa not offered land by the Tāmaki Regeneration Co. but we were not open to any options that were explored as possible commercial redress. So here we had two very, very experienced members of the select committee, and this Government, in its arrogance to actually push this bill through, did not take the opportunity to perhaps take some advice from those people on the select committee who had experience with Treaty negotiations.

Can I just go on the record to say that by not voting for this bill, Labour is not saying that using reserves for future Treaty settlements is off the table—I must say that. That is not what this is about, because there was an alternative option here to settle Ngāti Paoa’s commercial redress. But the Crown chose not to do that.

In the last 30 seconds, can I just say that we have heard members on that side of the House from Nelson, Hunua, Waimakariri, and Christchurch speak. They are not the MPs on that side of the House from Auckland—from Tāmaki. Those members have not got up and spoken on behalf of the people from Tāmaki. I find it hugely, hugely questionable that we have got all those members from Auckland on the Government benches, and we did not hear from one of them. Auckland should be upset about it and should vote that lot out come September.

Ā, mauri ora, e Te Mana Whakawā. I am proud to speak in support of the Point England Development Enabling Bill, and I am proud to be part of a Government that is passing this bill today—and I also went to school in Auckland, if that is any consolation. This particular bill here we know is not a Treaty settlement bill, but it is a wonderful opportunity post the Treaty settlement bill. The Point England Development Enabling Act and the housing that it enables will stand as a rebuke to the National Party that claims to care about housing supply in Auckland.

I am extremely excited about this bill, and so is Ngāti Paoa, and so were others of my Labour colleagues, particularly around the first reading. Let me quote one—e hoa Mr Peeni Henare: “welcome this partnership with Ngāti Paoa.” He welcomed the fact that his bill will not only provide extra housing in Auckland but will provide land for a new marae. Ka pai. I also want to tautoko Carmel Sepuloni’s comments that Labour will support any piece of legislation that is going to be about building more affordable houses in Auckland. If only those members meant it. In fact, Labour has opposed every single development that is getting more affordable homes built in Auckland.

If you ask me, I think Carmel Sepuloni was telling the truth. I think Peeni Henare really does have the best interests for his constituents in Tāmaki Makaurau at heart. But they have been overruled by a leader and a housing spokesperson whose first strategy on housing was “no more Chinese-sounding surnames”, and whose next big idea is overruling a partnership with iwi so that he can keep more cows grazing in the city.

I want to finish by paraphrasing Su’a William Sio. This bill, he said, “is not just about building houses. It is about recognising what this is for strong, healthy, safe families.” This is what this National-led Government is about, particularly on housing. Nō reira, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa, and I strongly support this bill in the third reading. Kia ora.

There has been much spoken about this bill in this House from the other side tonight that bears little relationship to the truth or what is actually in the bill. I want to start off my remarks by being very clear about the Labour Party’s position. We appreciate the need for more housing in Tāmaki, but we also believe that it is important to balance that demand with good urban design and public open spaces. That is a view that we have on this issue. Funnily enough, that is also the view—

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: And cows. A place for the cows.

—thank you, Mrs Tolley—of one Denise Lee, the National Party - aligned councillor for Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and the National Party candidate for the seat of Maungakiekie, as of 20 January. That is the view that she expressed at that time, standing shoulder to shoulder with Mayor Phil Goff, when she thought she could get away with making those sorts of comments. What Denise Lee was pointing out there was the fact that these matters are complex. They require engagement, they require listening, and they require careful examination and a proper consideration of all of the alternatives, to meet the needs of all of the people who are at the table.

But, instead, what we have got in this bill is a “Nick Smith special”—a piece of legislation that has been rammed through. In my comments I want to focus on the utter failures of process that destroy the integrity of this bill, regardless of its contents. Then, in respect of the substance of the bill, I want to talk about the fundamental importance of this piece of open space to the community in Maungakiekie-Tāmaki. I also want to speak about the alternative that was not explored, and that is the unspoken—and it will be the spoken—tragedy of this whole episode.

Before going on, I want to acknowledge the local community, who have fought, and fought not just for themselves but for the other people of their community and for future generations, in the interest of high-quality open space that will be there for everyone. I want to acknowledge colleagues in New Zealand First, who have stood with the Labour Party in opposing this bill as well. I want to acknowledge the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board and Labour candidate Priyanca Radhakrishnan in Maungakiekie, who have led the charge in supporting the community on the ground when they have felt powerless and locked out by an arrogant Government.

Let us start by talking about the process for this bill, and it is actually extraordinary—it is a total disgrace. It was dumped on the community just prior to Christmas last year—just prior to Christmas. So while Nick Smith and most other MPs were off enjoying their summer holidays in January, that was the only chance that the local community had to gather together to actually be consulted about this before we got into the formal process. So they gathered on something like 20 January. The local board stepped up where this Government failed to engage with the community. That is what they did. They got together and they came up with their views on this, and they immediately recognised that there was a failure of process and a risk to their high-quality open space. The local board had to hold meetings in the middle of the summer holiday to consult with the community. That was the starting point in terms of the egregious process of this bill, and it just got worse.

The chair of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board, Josephine Bartley, was very clear that there was no public consultation from the Government about this bill at the beginning, and she said that “If there was public consultation the Minister would have heard for himself from the people about how well used the sports fields are. We have groups like the Samoan community [who] have been playing kilikiti on those fields for the past 35 years.”, and the examples just go on and on from the community.

Something that I think is disgraceful is that in the Cabinet paper about this bill, which most of the National Government backbenchers who have spoken probably have not even sighted, the department says in that Cabinet paper that this bill would be divisive and that it would create a divide between the community and Ngāti Paoa. That was the advice that Minister Nick Smith got, and I would have thought that any responsible Government that received that advice would have taken a breath and would have thought about consultation and engagement and working this through, instead of charging through like the red-faced bull in a china shop that we always get from that Minister in this House. I think it is a disgrace.

The Auckland Council, in a submission the likes of which I have never seen before in terms of its language, described this bill as a dangerous precedent, because it is about central government running amok, running over the legitimate expectations that people have to be consulted. It cuts across multiple Acts—the Reserves Act, which sets out processes for communities and local government to be consulted before we have changes to our reserves. It cuts across the Resource Management Act, unbelievably, after the people of Auckland spent the best part of 2 or 3 years being consulted about the future urban form of Auckland and about what kind of housing should go where.

Simply by fiat in a couple of sentences in this bill, we have decided that a piece of reserve land will have a kind of housing called mixed-housing urban just dropped on it—it is three storeys high and medium density—just like that, cutting across entirely the kind of plan-change processes that every other citizen can expect when there is a change in their community, and that is also a disgrace.

Andrew Bayly spoke smoochingly in his speech about Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 321 dropped in by Nick Smith at the Committee stage to put additional sports fields on sensitive ecological land on the headland of Point England Reserve. That was put there in a desperate bid to try to save Denise Lee an extra 500 or so votes that she might have lost as a result of this barbarous legislation. That piece of legislation speaks to the problem.

Let us have a look at the bill itself. One of the things that it says, and we have had this put up as a defence from the National Government, is that in clause 9 of the bill there are obligations for the Minister to consult with the community and local government about what might happen next. But here we have Supplementary Order Paper 321 inserting clause 10, put in by fiat by the Minister in the Committee of the whole House with no consultation—no consultation—with anyone, telling Auckland Council that it has to do something that it, in fact, probably cannot do and that it probably cannot get a resource consent for. I have come from a council background. I can tell you that you cannot actually plan and consent and build a modern, high-quality sports field in the space of 12 months, which is what Nick Smith’s ridiculous SOP adds into this bill.

Listening to Nick Smith telling us and expecting us to believe that there will be consultation with the community after this bill is like believing Attila the Hun telling us that he will settle his disputes through a family group conference. What I say to the members on that side is that the National Party once had a proud tradition of following the rule of law, of following due process, of working with communities, and of doing things incrementally. Where is the party of Jim McLay? Where is the party of Ralph Hanan? Where is the party of Jack Marshall? Those were once Attorneys-General of that party, who would have put their foot down and said: “No. This is wrong. We’re going to follow the processes that are on our statute book.”

What I say to the Māori Party members, who have supported this bill right the way through, is when has it ever been good for Māori for central government to cut across the rule of law, to cut across due process, to cut across public consultation, and to cut across access to the courts? Let us be very clear that the way in which this bill cuts across the RMA and the Reserves Act, and cuts across the rights of access to the courts that members of the community would otherwise enjoy—when has that precedent ever served Māori in this country well? Yet they are voting for that tonight.

Coming to the substance of public open space, when the people of Auckland went through the exercise of the unitary plan—and noting that none of the National members who have stood up and spoken tonight have been members of urban Auckland electorates—Auckland came to a difficult decision that we would advance with a quality compact city. We would accept intensification, because we knew that that was what needed to happen to cater for growth and to give people decent housing. That was a difficult decision for Auckland, but we got there. But we also said that, when we did it, it had to be done in a quality way. That was the bargain: that as we intensify, as communities like Tāmaki accept 20,000 more people over the next 10 years - plus—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Oh, the man opposed to housing.

—that they will also have decent amenities—nice of you to return, Minister—and quality open space. That is part of the deal that Auckland made, and I am not going to accept being lectured to by a Minister who has presided over the housing crisis, and National Government Ministers, none of whom would accept the reserves lands in their electorates being carved up for housing like this.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: What’s happened in Riccarton? What happened in Riccarton?

Minister Nick Smith, I do wonder how you would feel about Rutherford Park or Branford Park in your electorate being carved up for housing. I wonder how the member for Hunua would feel about Rosa Birch Park in his electorate being carved up for housing. Yet we have these Ministers from outside of Auckland telling Aucklanders how their city should grow and telling Aucklanders that their parks and reserves are fair game. That is a disgrace, and those members and that party will pay the price for that on 23 September, no less anywhere than in the Maungakiekie electorate, where former members of the National Party have joined me on the protest line and joined Priyanca Radhakrishnan on the protest line to protest this abomination of a bill.

On process grounds and substance grounds this bill is an absolute dog. I proudly stand with the community of Maungakiekie against it and urge all members to vote it down. Thank you.