Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Amendment Bill

Before I take the next call, maybe some member might want to ask for this to be taken as one whole question, because I did note that people are wandering from clause 1 to clause 5 and perhaps people didn’t realise we got on to a bit of a rocky road there. So does any member want to do that or not?

Point of order, Mr Chair. I move that all parts be taken as one.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Leave is sought for that purpose. Are there any objections? There are no objections.

SHANAN HALBERT: Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s always good to be a great representative for those of us from Northcote in the absence of any other voices when it comes to issues that relate to Auckland’s North Shore. And this is a very good bill, of course. We are blessed and flush with wonderful facilities, regional parks, and recreation areas across Te Raki Pae Whenua in Auckland’s North Shore. From the outset, I have been an advocate and very supportive of the member’s work in this local bill, particularly because it assists it in coping and enabling it in modern times.

The challenge here is that this is the best that this Government is presenting for the North Shore. When I think about hospital beds built, houses built, classrooms built, that was all under the Labour Government, and my friend the member and next-door neighbour, knows that. So I always encourage people of the North Shore to be asking the question: is this the best that the Government has got? I hope that, tomorrow, it might benefit a lot more working people. I will hold my breath and move on to this particular bill.

For those that are watching tonight from the North Shore, you can hear the rowdiness coming from Government members because it is a sore point, but it doesn’t take away from this particular bill, the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Amendment Bill. What I say: ahakoa he iti, he pounamu [although small, it is a treasure], because sometimes it’s the incremental changes that can be made to effect and enable good things locally. So, for our community in the North Shore, it is a good thing.

When I think of other facilities, recreational parks, centres, I also acknowledge the former MP for Northcote Ann Hartley, because, through her work in council, she also secured a lot of property, a lot of land, that services the electorate of North Shore and across to Northcote as well.

I do have a couple of questions, when it comes back to this particular piece of legislation, for the member. I’m just seeking an understanding from him what initial consultation he went through with our North Shore community, both in his electorate and in the Northcote electorate, because we do cross over that motorway very often and enjoy the facilities over in the wonderful coves and beaches in the North Shore electorate. What consultation did he have both prior to and during this particular process?

I also want to acknowledge the contribution through the select committee from Auckland Council, and I know we have quite a strong and vocal mayor in ensuring that local decisions are made, particularly with input from Auckland Council and himself in particular. So I’m interested to know what his contribution was and what engagement the member had with Mayor Wayne Brown in this particular instance.

The other part, I guess, is: what risks has the member identified, throughout this process, of this facility being used unintentionally—sometimes where people might think it’s for good reasons—for commercial purposes that don’t serve our local North Shore community, and how has he ensured that through this legislation there are some parameters made on that, given the whakapapa and the context of how this particular facility came about? I’ll hold there, and I’ll have another round shortly.

Thank you, members. I just want to state the question, which I didn’t do before, but I’ll do that now. The question is that clauses 1 to 5 and the Schedule stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, Minister Watts for bringing the bill. As a keen water sport practitioner—although I noticed that kayaking is not listed, but maybe we can work on that. Kite foiling, kite surfing, dingy sailing, all sorts of wonderful activities, but those people definitely need to re-caffeinate after their activity, and this is a great opportunity. It was wonderful to be part of a select committee agreeing on something. Listening to the council, listening to the boating club, and also being able to preserve a piece of heritage that has possibly got the best view in Auckland, looking out to Rangitoto. So that’s all good.

I would like to ask Minister Watts—and maybe you could take off your local MP hat and put your local government hat on—while the outcome from our unanimous decision will be helpful for the community, will be helpful for the club, will be helpful for the locals, it is sort of strange that such a matter needs to come to this Chamber. I think this is a very good example where, for historic reasons, we’re making a decision in this room about what is an important but actually very small place that would be well decided within Auckland Council’s remit. While I know there are some that would like to narrow the scope of local government so they’re only looking at potholes and pipes, this would be a great example of community wellbeing and of heritage. So I think we should really consider that local issues should be dealt with by local people and not require coming first of all to a whole round of the wonderful Governance and Administration Committee and then here. I will play my small part in not taking up more of this committee’s time, however delightful the bill, by sitting down now and looking forward to the member’s answers.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I do acknowledge there are a large number of questions this evening and so I will do my best to work my way through them, and I acknowledge all members for their contribution on what is a very important topic.

First and foremost, the member from Northcote had three questions in regards to consultation, particularly more broadly with the community, with our Mayor of Auckland, and also any unintentional risks as well. So I’ll work my way through those. It was a very thorough consultation process undertaken by Auckland Council. Just a reminder again that this is actually a local bill which is brought here on behalf of Auckland Council. As a Government member, I’m shepherding that local bill through; this is not a Government bill and, you know, that’s why we are here. We see them rarely, but we do see a few of them coming through.

So consultation was undertaken very extensively by Auckland Council. I know they ran a number of in-person sessions across the electorate in Bayswater and in Devonport and other beautiful locations such as that. They had an online portal from which they gathered feedback, and I do acknowledge that many within the community found that a very useful process to consult and feedback into this bill. Overwhelmingly, again, my community of the North Shore supported that consultation. That’s one of the requirements before a local bill can be submitted through to Parliament. We want to have comfort that that process has been done.

In addition to that, obviously it went through a full select committee process. Again, we acknowledge the tributes and capability of the Governance and Administration Committee for the work on that, but it went through a select committee process. I think, as one of the members noted before, there were a number of submissions and that formed another basis. So I think the consultation period, as the member has noted, has been done pretty consciously.

I think that process has been ongoing. I know there’s a large following of the progress of this bill through the House and I know in the local Flagstaff or the local Observer—which are the local rags in my neck of the woods—they have regular updates. Even, I believe, Stuff have written a number of double-page features on this which included a photo of the derelict building, which I think got everyone’s hearts caught up with this intriguing story, and it is the one that—I think everyone’s been part of that journey. So anyway, that’s been that.

Look, in regards to Mayor Wayne Brown, I know that this is an area of improving local facilities for local communities, which is a priority. I’m not sure whether the mayor has actually visited this specific location—potentially, because it had a number of dances and other events back in the day and I’m sure a lot of people went through in that period. But the conversations that I have regularly with the mayor, he’s always a big supporter of projects such as this. And again, as mayor, he shepherded this through as Auckland Council.

Now there’s the third question related to unintentional consequences and risks. I think the member was referring to maybe if for some reason this and went beyond potentially a cafe or an ice cream bar to something, I don’t know, a little bit more risky. I won’t go into what that could be—

Hon Member: Hot dogs!

Hon SIMON WATTS: —but I want to—gelatos have been mentioned. I’m not sure that that’s going to be—we’re pretty traditional on the North Shore; we like our ice creams. And just to go back: a boysenberry ripple. Someone asked before a question: favourite ice cream? Boysenberry ripple, and I’m hearing “Good choice” coming from the left—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Clam and tomato.

Hon SIMON WATTS: —but some of the members—sorry?

Hon Rachel Brooking: Clam and tomato.

Hon SIMON WATTS: OK, well, I’m not familiar with that. Anyway, the question was around unintentional—look, I know the Governance and Administration Committee has spent a lot of time on this point because they also had concerns around making sure that the revenue gathered and the income gathered as part of this bill went for its intended purposes. So they did make it a number of consideration, particularly in regards to clause 5(2) and strengthening that portion, and particularly clause 5(2)(b)(iii), actually, which defines community purpose. I think that was an addition by the Governance and Administration Committee. But I know that there are a few members that want to just dig into that a little bit more deeply. I appreciate that and I’m happy to answer the questions.

The member Celia Wade-Brown noted a good point. Her question was in regards to probably two parts: one is maintaining local voice and the role in which local communities can make decisions on such matters. I think we would all acknowledge that, again, this is a local bill but the reality is things were done in the past which we are still working our way through. But I think the broader question, and it’s one in which I know has been considered is: how can we or how could we deal with a number of these legacy historical bills which have such clauses within them and which, with a quick fix, would actually make a positive impact for communities across the country, and what’s the most efficient mechanism to deal with that? While not within my responsibility, I do know that that’s something that is under consideration more broadly, and we’ll see where that goes. So those are the questions that have been answered so far.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on this bill, as we just ease into the committee stage. I know there will be a robust range of questions coming, as we continue over the next couple of hours on this. For me, I haven’t had the opportunity yet to sit on the committee, but hearing some of the debate that has gone on, from members that were present and to the Minister’s comments as well—in his capacity as the local member for North Shore, of course—the robustness of the consultation that happened, I’m really interested to delve into one aspect in particular here, under clause 4, inserting new section 5(3), which starts with “The Auckland Council, or a body or person claiming through or under it”.

The word that I want to focus on specifically with this contribution is “or”. I’m talking about “or”, not to be confused “o-a-r”, which could be a reasonable confusion point, given the nature of the location and the premises that we’re discussing here this evening, but “o-r”—“or”—“The Auckland Council, or a body or person claiming through or under it”. I guess the point I specifically want to raise within that is whether that means it can only be one of those. That, for me, is relevant in the context of this. Obviously, the importance of any committee stage is trying to make sure we end up with a robust, confident, competent piece of legislation that, ultimately, can stand the test of time, as indeed the predecessor to this amendment bill did—and the building itself, as Mr Costley points out. Hence why I’m wondering whether “or” should actually be “and”. I’ll come to the detail of that in a moment. Specifically—

Hon Member: Important difference.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Well, it could indeed be “and/or”, and I’d be open to either of those, but certainly keen to get feedback from Mr Watts—or, indeed, it may be raised by other members who’ve sat on the committee, such as Mr Costley and all the others who made a contribution through this point.

For me, this is an important consideration because it talks about “The Auckland Council, or a body or person claiming through or under it, may grant a lease, licence, or other arrangement for use of [that] land”. Now, that piece is important, because what I want to understand is whether we are talking about the ability to have only one single tenancy within that, or whether, indeed, there could perhaps be a couple of tenancies, or indeed subtenancies within that. Then, that raises the question of “or”, because, if we’re saying, well, actually, there could be two pieces—one could be the ice cream stand and one could be the hot dog stand, for example—but they are separate businesses operating from there and therefore have separate leases, if one is granted by the Auckland Council, could the second one be granted by a body or person claiming through or under it? Or must it also then be granted by the Auckland Council? It says, “Auckland Council, or a body or person claiming through or under it, can grant a lease,”, but not “and”.

The concern is that you could have the council, on one hand, granting a lease to one business operator but then that, potentially, negates the ability for a body or person acting on behalf of the council to grant a separate lease to an additional potential operator from that. I guess that’s where I wonder whether indeed “and” would be a better word to have in there, or perhaps “and/or”, as an alternative amendment that Mr Costley may seek to discuss more robustly than I can in this contribution. That would indeed, then, enable both the council and a body or person acting through or under it to grant separate leases to separate operators for separate business purposes. So I guess that’s the one piece that comes back to the crux of whether there can be separate tendencies. And, if so, can anybody acting through or under grant that lease? Or can it only be either the council, on the one hand, granting both leases? If it were two, in this example we’ve talked about, “or the person or body acting on their behalf” granting both leases, but not Auckland Council on the one hand and the other body or person claiming through or under it to grant the separate lease.

I think that would be an important point for us to have some clarity on as we go into this, for any potential vendors who may be looking, once this passes through—not just today but, of course, the third reading—and becomes law, to take up the commercial opportunity presented by that and, ultimately, then drive some economic growth in the North Shore community, which is fantastic and will, of course, contribute to the maintenance of the land, buildings, and other improvements, and community purposes, as have been discussed earlier on in section 5 and other aspects. There’s a lot more to delve into with that, but I think some initial comments from the Minister on the use of “or” instead of “and”, or indeed both, would be very helpful. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, my apologies, Tim Costley. Look, it really is a pleasure to stand up and contribute in this committee of the whole House procedure that we’re taking part in, with respect to the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill. It’s a pleasure because, unfortunately, I’m not part of the Governance and Administration Committee, but I do have the privilege of being on the Māori Affairs Committee and the Justice Committee. I wasn’t able to take part in the process, but it really is a privilege that I can take part in the process now.

What I would like to ask, Madam Chair—Madam Chair, welcome to the Chair. It was Mr Chair before you. Look, there are so many questions that I can see that my colleagues around me and behind me want to delve into, as we said earlier, but if you don’t mind, since earlier it was allowed by Mr Chair that we can take all these clauses as one part, I’d like to ask the Minister—if you don’t mind, Minister Watts; one of the best Ministers on the North Shore there with Erica Stanford and others.

I’m always curious about commencement of bills that become an Act. The reason why I’m interested in that is a lot of times we hear about how when a change takes place, so much needs to happen in order to be able to really be practical with respect to the changes that need to take place with changes in a law. So, Minister, I was curious to know, I read here that in clause 2 that the Act will come into force the day after Royal assent. Minister, if you don’t mind, for my own just piece of mind and for those on the North Shore and those that will be directly affected by the changes that we’re hoping that you’re shepherding through, Minister, with this bill that we are conversing on today. Minister, with the day after Royal assent, I’m presuming—and if you can just—[Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): There’s a lot of chatter over there—not from the person speaking, thank you.

RIMA NAKHLE: I’m presuming, Minister, that you’re absolutely confident that the day after Royal assent is sufficient for all of those parties involved with this really excellent change that you’re shepherding through, and that that should be sufficient for the administrative tasks that will be the roll-on kind of domino effect that will happen after this bill is passed. Minister, I just want to hear your thoughts. I’m sure that you’re confident about that. So, Minister, it would be great to hear your thoughts.

Once again, just before we delve into your thoughts, I would like to thank the members of the committee and, in particular, those members that are around me. I know there’s some people that don’t know how to turn their frowns upside down on the other side of the House, but over here, look, I really do want to tautoko my mates, you know, like the likes of Tom Rutherford, the likes of Tim Costley, and the Hon Melissa Lee, and Stuart Smith, and shall I say Rachel Boyack, she’s the chairperson—not any more—and she came over and let us know her favourite flavour, the clam flavour of ice-cream.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Different Rachel.

RIMA NAKHLE: Pardon me?

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Wrong Rachel.

RIMA NAKHLE: Rachel Brooking—my apologies. But we’ve just got to deal with the frowning friend of yours over there. So, Minister, if you don’t mind, do enlighten us about this one day after the Royal assent, and that’s all from me.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Again, I acknowledge the questions around the Chamber at the moment—a flurry coming through at the moment. There were two really good questions there.

I want to first go to the member for Takanini, Rima Nakhle—and I just acknowledge the great work that you do in your electorate. Your question was in regards to clause 2 “Commencement”, in regards to the Royal assent. I guess I’m in your hands, in the context of that. It will depend on how quickly we can move our way through the committee of the whole House stage and also third reading. But I know the people of the North Shore cannot wait for the day following Royal assent to be able to get in and do this and make this a reality. So I’m not into forecasting; I don’t have that crystal ball, but I hope it’s not too far away from today.

To the member from Waikato. I acknowledge Tim van de Molen, who I think raised an important point in the context of “or”, “and/or”, or “and”—I think. Some are laughing, not me, but this is an important point. I actually do know, from conversations that have been raised in the committee, that, actually, the Governance and Administration Committee did spend quite a lot of time in their deliberation in the context of that point. I know member Tim Costley will, potentially, add more colour to that—more flavour to that!

Look, the purpose here is to be able to allow the club to be able to derive income in order to support the maintenance and sustaining of that business operation. I think there is a degree of expectation of flexibility around that. I know that the Governance and Administration Committee was very focused around not putting compliance and restrictions on that. I think they wanted a straightforward process to deal with the issue, and the drafting in which they’ve landed on has got us to that point. So I welcome any more questions.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I’ll take some more questions but they need to be new and they need to be relatively sensible.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I knew when you said “sensible” that it was probably likely going to fall to me, so thank you very much. I’ve been following this bill and participating closely. Just reflecting on comments from the sponsor of this local bill, the Hon Simon Watts, that the Takapuna Boating Club are watching this coverage from different vantage points around the North Shore—if not New Zealand—then it takes me back, and it will take everyone back, to when that same Takapuna Boating Club and the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron were watching Sir Peter Blake and others win the America’s Cup in San Diego in 1995. I would imagine that when the Hon Simon Watts gets this legislation over the line, there too will be a ticker tape parade—not down Queen Street; no, not down there, but down Hurstmere Road, down Lake Road. It will just go right through the North Shore all the way down Lake Road. I don’t know how long it takes to get from Takapuna to Bayswater on Lake Road—let’s not do it at peak time; it could be a long ticker tape—but I’d imagine the celebration will be enormous.

So it should be, because this legislation and this amendment has been over 100 years in the making. This gives us the opportunity to ensure that this prime piece of real estate—and, frankly, there’s not much prime real estate sitting on the water in a community and commercial sense in Auckland; a lot of it’s set back. So this enables this piece of real estate that has already had its roof replaced and its foundations done and some money spent on it, the Bayswater clubhouse, to be kept in perpetuity, its heritage status remaining, but with a commercial imperative to ensure that it stays for another 100 years.

That brings me to these questions: looking at the different clauses here and the definitions, I want to get a sense from the member that, with a commercial entity coming in, this is going to be able to fit inside and work alongside the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board’s local alcohol policy, because I suspect if it’s a licensee or a hospitality operator, given the fabulous location, that they will be looking for a local licence, and, sometimes, as we’ve discovered in Auckland and other places, local licences, particularly in and around community spaces and residential areas, are not easily obtained. So I want to know that, if we pass this legislation, a commercial arrangement can be looked into and locked up, knowing that this commercial entity that gets signed up will have the ability to run an on-licence facility, whether it’s a wine bar or whether it’s a restaurant or a licensed cafe—also whether there are restrictions as to the footprint of a licensed premises. We don’t want to turn this into a Speight’s Ale House where it gets bigger and bigger and bigger and the community facilities get smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller. So has there been a restriction put in, or is there any expectation, that one floor or half of one floor or 200 square metres of the building spilling out over to the land, perhaps, is where the operator will sit and where that footprint is limited?

Thirdly, I just wanted to get a sense from the local member and the sponsor as to—this might be outside the scope, but he might have a comment as to whether this is a piece of legislation that is going on in perpetuity or this is—because, as we know, Auckland Council basically wrote this. Auckland Council wrote it more so than the Parliamentary Counsel Office; Auckland Council was who we liaised with—like a lot of these local bills, to the Hon Simon Watts, something that should be wrapped up in Auckland Council by-law, not parliamentary legislation. Thank you.

Thank you very much to Cameron Brewer, the member from Upper Harbour, and I just again want to acknowledge his support for this bill. I do acknowledge that that has been a longstanding degree of support—another member, based on the North Shore, who does an absolutely wonderful job for his local community.

The question that was raised is, I think, an important one because it’s often one that galvanises communities across our country, in the context of liquor licences and other aspects. I do know that the Takapuna Boating Club have considered this widely. It was also picked up in consultation as well. I think where this has landed—and I think I’m comfortable that where the Governance and Administration Committee landed on this is they didn’t want to be overly restrictive of the income being derived from this entity, acknowledging there are other by-laws and other processes already in place. Simply, creating an enabling framework to do commercial activity and derive income was the purpose of the changes in this bill. The other considerations around the issuing of licences will be done through existing processes in local government.

I’d go out on a limb here—and I don’t often like doing that, but, on behalf of the members of the North Shore, I think there would be a few members of the North Shore community that probably would be open to the opportunity to maybe share a can of hazy pale ale or maybe a chardonnay or maybe a mixture of other aspects in that context. But that’ll be for the club to determine in what is most appropriate, and I’m not going to get into that. I think there are very sensible people involved in this entity. I think, again, what the select committee have done in terms of improving and enhancing this bill to make sure that it is fit for purpose is going to stand it in good stead.

So, in the context of that, I hope that answers the member’s questions. And the question around how long—well, I think when people reflect back on this bill 100 years from now, like we are reflecting in the context of the period of 1923, I’m sure they will reflect back on the Hansard and go, “Well, I’m glad that this Parliament stood behind what is such an important bill and made the right decision.” And the benefits that will flow from this decision will, I’m sure, be felt for generations ahead.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Thank you. I heard the Minister say that this was a local bill and Auckland Council are heavily involved in this project. So I want to ask, then, at a local level, what local iwi, local marae, hapū, Māori organisations were engaged and to what regards? Who were they and what were their responses? Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve got three questions I would like to ask the Minister. The first one is really to pick up—because I didn’t quite hear the answer—along similar lines to what Cameron Brewer asked before—on the need for an Act of Parliament to amend this. Does he see a way that we could have actually used this as an opportunity to maybe wrap up the legal framework so we don’t have to come back to Parliament? I think, as an example, one that might be helpful to compare it to—and members will be familiar with the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill. Actually, in that bill—which went through last year and which was, again, a member’s bill—it included a clause that meant it would no longer need to come back to the House for amendment. Is there a pathway through which that could have been included here, by way of amendment? So that any future changes—because we’ve heard some of the different, I guess, the left and right of arc out there, the different perceptions and the different ideas for how this building could be used and the different commercial purposes and the community purposes that those funds could be channelled for. Is there a way that this could be amended so that we wouldn’t need to come back to Parliament next time there is a change in the use of the land? So that is the first question I’d like to hear from the Minister on—from the member in charge; I apologise.

The second one and the third one come under clause 5—so clause 5(2)(b)(iii) and also clause 5(3). Clause 5(2)(b)(iii) is community purposes, and we know that the majority of funds, as was covered before, will be used for the upkeep of the land and in particular the renovations of the building. But clause 5(2)(b)(iii) just states “community purposes” as the final purpose that that money and that profit can be spent on, maybe down the track, when the renovations are complete. There was discussion at the Governance and Administration Committee, and there was even comment from council in their additional information provided around 10 February, about whether or not “community purposes” was too vague. Is it prescriptive enough? Is there the chance that, in the future, that money could be used for something that was deemed “community purpose” but maybe wasn’t inherent enough, wasn’t tied to the use of this land? Is using the money for a community purpose to say, fund something in Papakura—would that be OK? Is that too far apart? What if the council was to look further? What if it was for some reason contributing to, I don’t know, the next America’s Cup bid when it’s in New Zealand? Is that a community purpose? Where do we draw the line? What if it was something outside the Auckland area, like the Rugby World Cup, but Auckland benefits from that, it’s good for the community? Could money be channelled into that direction? How far can it go now?

Now, my personal view here, and the member—

Shanan Halbert: Already asked that question.

TIM COSTLEY: No, well, we haven’t asked that question. You’ve got to pay attention—that’s why Dan Bidois is a great MP for Northcote. My perception of this is I think we need to leave the terms broad, and trust council and trust those that are involved to make good decisions and give them scope to make community decisions. That’s what they’re elected to do. It aligns with what we heard from the Green Party member earlier, saying, “Let’s let councillors at a local level make some decisions.” I think leaving it broad is actually helpful, but I wonder if the member in charge has any views on that.

The third question, which is clause 5(3) and was addressed in part by Mr van de Molen before, was around the use of that word “or”: “The Auckland Council, or a body or person claiming through … it”. I wonder if the member has considered that that might actually come from the fact that this was originally the Takapuna Borough, which is now the Auckland Council. In the future, there could be a way that it’s the Auckland Council, or the body or person claiming through it could revert to something like the Takapuna Borough. There could be a district council. There could be a different entity at a council level which approves the use. Would that be therefore a higher body which is granting a lease, a licence, or another arrangement? Would it be fair to say that we don’t have to be discreet, that that provision might be used once to grant a lease to one person and then it could be used again to grant a lease to a second person?

So do we actually need the word “and” in there? Because I think, actually, “or” is sufficient. The higher body is the one that is granting the lease, but they can do that more than once, so, therefore, I think the suggestion of an amendment to include the word “and” is actually redundant in that meaning. But I think it is important to bear in mind that there could be a different entity other than Auckland Council. It could be a borough, it could be a harbour board—as it was when this bill was first brought about—that might award that.

Of course, is there any provision on subletting? What if someone was to subgrant their lease and give that to someone else? And if I just had a few seconds to finish, Madam Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Two.

TIM COSTLEY: Thank you, I—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Simon Watts.

Thank you, very much, Madam Chair. Again, I just acknowledge the contributions from all members. I’ll go through the questions that were raised.

First, Takutai Tarsh Kemp raised a question in regards to iwi engagement. That was a question that was actually brought up as part of the prior speech. That was raised in the context of this bill, and we have had confirmation from Auckland Council that their consultation was wide ranging and included input from relevant local iwi as part of that process. Again, the support of that, through that consultation process, was very thorough, which is great to hear.

To the member Tim Costley, again—and I do acknowledge the contribution that he has been making this evening, in terms of the points. I think he raises some important points in regards to new section 5(3) in particular, and 5(1). Look, the reality is that I’m comfortable, as was the select committee, with the wording used—“or”—in that section. I think it provides the appropriate basis in order for this to be carried forward, and I don’t foresee that we need to be making any amendment in regards to that.

I think, to the points raised, also by the member, as to the question around community purpose, the context of that is very much in the context of the boating club and ensuring that the boating club is used for a community purpose, not forgetting it was, historically, used as boat shed, pub, public swimming baths, a social hall used for dance and other social gatherings, and other similar community purposes. That was the context of the principal purpose of this building.

I hope, members, that answers all of the question, and again I acknowledge all members for their support of this bill.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Motion agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 5 and the Schedule agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 7.30.

Sitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.