Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) : I rise to support the Immigration Bill, because it was a Labour Government bill. It is well-thought-out and it changes the immigration law, after 20 years. Consideration was given to many issues and concerns that have been raised by the community. In doing so, the Labour Government considered the global labour situation, and the security environment around the country as well as internationally. This bill provides a balance between allowing us to choose the migrants we want and need in this country, and protecting our national interest. It ensures that we can protect our borders, and it enables us to successfully fill our immigration-related international obligations.

This bill does a number of things, and I will highlight some of the key issues in it. For example, this bill looks at the visa system. At the moment we have a number of visas, permits, and exemptions. I know that a number of people who visit this country get a permit to enter, then they have to apply for another visa if they want to stay for a longer term—although sometimes people have exemptions. This bill clearly brings all these visas, if you like, into one universal visa system. I think that is very important, because of the costs of some of these visas for some visitors. When they come here they have to pay one set of fees, then when they apply for a visa in order to stay for a longer term, they have to pay more fees. All these different fee structures have been combined into one universal visa system. It is also a much easier and more flexible system for the Minister of Immigration to implement, and there will be a lot of positive outcomes for people who are coming into the country.

At the moment we have a number of appeal authorities. For example, there are four appeal authorities that people have to go through. If they have been out here for some time and they want an extension to their visa or they have overstayed, then to regularise their visas they have to go through a number of authorities. This bill combines all of those authorities into one independent appeal tribunal, called the Immigration and Protection Tribunal. I think this will be great for a lot of people who have overstayed. The bill gives the Minister the opportunity to have one tribunal to deal with these issues. Similarly, the removal and deportation provisions, and the revocation of visas, provide for a transparent deportation system. I think that is very important, because often immigrants are confused. They are not sure which particular regulations apply to them, because they have either a removal order or a deportation order. All these provisions are now combined in this bill.

Although I support this bill, I am also very mindful of a number of issues that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee looked at. There were 90 submissions on this bill, and most of them were heard by the committee. The committee has made some important changes to a number of issues, particularly in relation to the use of classified information on people coming here, to the refugee and protected person system, and to the detention and monitoring system. Some of those issues have relevance in terms of people’s rights, particularly in relation to using classified information. The select committee had to do a lot of work to try to streamline some of those issues. The select committee has done a great job, and I congratulate the committee members. With those few words, I thank the committee for its work and I support the bill.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) : It is a pleasure to be able to speak on the Immigration Bill today. I have been heartened to hear that, although there are some differences in opinion, the bill definitely has broad-based support. As we have heard, it has support because people understand the importance of the bill as the foundation for New Zealand’s immigration system. They understand the importance of immigration to New Zealand. It is a driver of economic growth, and it assists us to meet a range of obligations to the international community.

I reiterate the gratitude expressed in the House to all the people who have contributed to this bill. Literally thousands of people have had input into this legislation since the Immigration Act review began. The majority of those people have been members of the public, members of ethnic organisations, and members of a variety of law societies. What is impressive about that is it shows that there has been robust debate on the bill. Part of that debate has been heard here in the House during this reading, and we have heard it during the speech from the Green Party. However, I think it is important that where criticisms are levelled against the bill, they do not misrepresent it—that they are not scaremongering. It seems to me that there has been a lot of scaremongering about the classified information provisions in the bill.

I remind everyone here in the House today that the Part 4A processes under the current Immigration Act have only ever been used once. We have had the power to use these processes for 10 years and they have only ever been used just that one time. Do members know why? It is because the Immigration Service is good at finding the open-source information it needs in order to make decisions.

I do not know why people think that just because of the provisions in this bill there will be a mad rush by the Government to use classified information left, right, and centre. I also do not know why people think the classified information provisions in this bill are so bad. Any person who cared to do a comparison would surely see that they are better than the Part 4A processes in the current Act. To start with, there is an entitlement to a summary of allegations in most circumstances. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has ensured that unless a summary can be given for key decisions, classified information cannot be used at all. The bill also provides access to a special advocate in any appeal or review proceedings. None of these provisions exists in the current Act.

I do not want to dwell on the classified information processes; they are taking up more time than they deserve in the overall debate. The final thing I will address in relation to them is the blanket claim that under the legislation the High Court will be compelled to treat inaccurate classified information as accurate. I have just described some of the key safeguards in relation to the classified information provisions. At the heart of the safeguards is a clear and closely prescribed appeal and review process. Where classified information is used people will generally have the right to appeal its use to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal and/or the courts. In the context of those appeals the veracity and the accuracy of the classified information is able to be tested. People will be able to challenge its use in the decision made about them.

What the bill does not allow is for people to challenge the accuracy of classified information in warrant of commitment hearings. The reason for this is to avoid multiple strings of challenge being used to obstruct the regular and proper decision-making process. Treating classified information as accurate in the context of a warrant hearing prevents delays in the warrant process and the decision-making process.

I do not think there will be many circumstances where we will need to use classified information in a decision to detain someone, but given that we are talking about people who are a risk or a threat to security or who are criminals, I think it is pretty important that if we need to use it, we do. I think most New Zealanders would agree with that.

It has been disappointing to hear the criticisms from the Greens about the impact of the bill on refugees. It is pretty clear that the bill takes significant steps forward in providing for a robust refugee and protection system that takes account of New Zealand’s international obligations. The bill recognises not only New Zealand’s obligations under the refugee convention but also our immigration-related obligations under the convention against torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. People seem to forget how positive that aspect and many other aspects of the bill are. Maybe I could remind people of some of those positive aspects.

Firstly, the bill does away with the visa permit and exemption system. That might not seem like such a big deal, but it will make life easier for people dealing with immigration. Applicants and employers are two examples.

The bill creates an interim visa. Where people put in an application and a decision is not made before their current visa runs out, an interim visa can bridge the gap. This is important as it means people can remain lawfully in New Zealand and will have more certainty.

The bill allows for automated decision-making, with appropriate safeguards. This means that New Zealand will be able to put into place systems that compete favourably against other immigration systems internationally. Where appropriate, we will be able to automate some decisions so that they will happen quickly.

The bill also enables most people to remain lawfully in New Zealand throughout any appeal they might be undertaking. This is a significant change from the current system, where often people have their permission to stay in New Zealand revoked before any appeal.

These are just some of the positive aspects of this bill, and it is worth mentioning that the bill’s deportation, compliance, and enforcement provisions will not apply to most people. Members may ask why not. It is because most people do the right thing. They have nothing to worry about, because they are good, honest people who comply with our immigration law. These are the people New Zealand wants and needs in order to build the economy.

This bill is one part of a programme of work towards building a stronger immigration system for New Zealand. There are also a number of operational improvements that will support these legislative changes. Today I released the outcome of the review of the Immigration Service’s Pacific division. I have asked the chief executive to consider integrating all activities of the Pacific division back into the core of Immigration New Zealand. I will also be appointing an independent adviser to report to me on the chief executive’s actions in relation to the Pacific division and to monitor service performance. I have every confidence that the chief executive will take the actions necessary to restore the level of service and to restore full confidence in Immigration New Zealand’s Pacific operations.

I acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of staff at Immigration New Zealand are hard-working, honest, and professional, and that they do an excellent job for New Zealand, ensuring that the right people come here to work, live, visit, or study. Most people in the Immigration Service do the right thing. I think that was acknowledged here in the House in the speeches on this bill. I can assure the House that that acknowledgment is appreciated by the staff of Immigration New Zealand.

The state of the global economy makes it more important than ever that the Department of Labour, including Immigration New Zealand, is in the best possible position and has the best possible systems in place to face the enormous challenges ahead. It is essential that we have as many New Zealanders in jobs as possible, whilst ensuring we have the best possible skilled people from overseas in areas where it has been difficult to recruit locals. Immigration provides an important source of talent and skills to support the New Zealand economy. Having the right systems in place that leverage off this bill is important. Employers, the international education system, and the tourism industry, amongst others, rely on New Zealand having a world-class, competitive immigration system.

Immigration New Zealand has a programme of work under way to address longstanding under-investment in its people, its systems, and its business processes. This includes investment in its core application management system, as well as a plan for investing in a modern information technology system to replace the application management system, which will not be fit for its purpose in the future. In addition, Immigration New Zealand will institute an end to end business process review to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of its services. Supporting professional leadership and management capability in Immigration New Zealand will be a key aspect of this work.

As my colleagues have stated, the Government wants New Zealand to have a robust and progressive immigration system. This bill will help achieve that goal. The bill will provide a solid foundation, but we recognise that there is other work to do. As members can see from the announcement made today, this Government is committed to doing it. I look forward to the Committee stage of this bill, and I know that the work is progressing well.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) : I am pleased to be able to make a contribution to the debate on the Immigration Bill. I commence my remarks by paying tribute to the new Minister of Immigration, Dr Jonathan Coleman, and congratulating him on his contributions to the debate and to the management of the bill so far. It must be really refreshing for New Zealanders to know that immigration policy is at long last in the hands of a capable, intelligent, clear-thinking Minister, which is such a huge contrast from what this country has come to expect in recent years in relation to immigration policy.

The aim of this bill is to reform legislation affecting immigration in order to establish a stronger and more flexible legislative framework for New Zealand’s immigration system. Immigration goes right to the heart of the nature and history of New Zealand; we have to get immigration policy right. To manage immigration in a fair and balanced way is the objective of this bill. In order to achieve that, a number of significant changes are being made. Firstly, the new visa system will be simpler. In fact, that one word, “visa”, will replace the previous three words: “visa”, “permit”, and “exemption”. The words “permit” and “exemption” will go, and just the word “visa” will be used in their place. As part of that change, three classes of visa are being established. The naming of these classes provides a clarity and understanding that did not exist before. There will be a residence visa, a temporary entry visa, and a transit visa.

The second key change occurring as a result of the Immigration Bill—and the Minister made very good points about this—is the ability to use classified information in a wider range of decision-making areas, with particular safeguards. And that is the point—with particular safeguards. This change will assist the identification process. Those of us who are electorate members of Parliament, for whom immigration work takes up a fair bit of the time our offices spend dealing with constituents, will welcome this. This change is balanced by providing greater natural justice protection for non - New Zealand citizens where classified information is being used.

The third key change in the bill is to establish a single independent appeals tribunal, which will be known as the Immigration and Protection Tribunal. This single tribunal will replace the four immigration and refugee tribunals we have at the moment. That has to be good. It is important to appreciate that this bill does not reduce the appeal rights contained in the Immigration Act 1987. Those rights remain. Those who seek to pick fault with the bill on those grounds really need to reflect on what they are actually saying. I repeat the point: this bill does not affect the appeal rights contained in the 1987 Act. I think we will see as a result of these changes a more transparent and fair deportation process. That is what New Zealanders would expect to see in legislation such as this.

The fourth key area of change is the greater flexibility that is being put into the compliance powers of appropriately trained and designated immigration officials. In practical terms, this means, first of all, that there will be new powers for immigration officials to exercise power of entry, inspection, and search. Secondly, there are new, limited powers for information officers to detain a non - New Zealand citizen who is liable to arrest and detention. Thirdly, the bill will increase the period of detention without a warrant—which currently ranges from 42 to 78 hours—to 96 hours. This provision will better enable the Department of Labour to facilitate the departure of non - New Zealand citizens. It is fair, it is sensible, and it in no way infringes on any existing rights available under the 1987 Act.

In conclusion, I go back to where I started. Immigration is a very important feature of New Zealand life. New Zealand is built on immigration. We are a country that welcomes immigrants and the contribution they can make to our country. This legislation should further encourage and enhance that. In saying that, though, let us not lose sight of one fact: the best immigration policy is our own people staying here and our own people, having done their OE, wanting to come home. But, of course, that will never meet the total population skill needs of our country, so we need an immigration system that is flexible, robust, and strong, and that will enable us to meet our current and future skill needs. We need an immigration system that will attract, for example, business interests, because it is businesses that create employment, prosperity, and income. And above all else, after the experiences of recent years, which are a tragedy, New Zealand needs to develop an immigration service in which every citizen, every potential immigrant, and every refugee being assisted can have confidence that they are being treated fairly, directly, and honestly, and that there is only one way to get into New Zealand—the lawful way. I commend this legislation to the House.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) : Those of the public who have been watching on television will have observed that the member who has resumed his seat, Allan Peachey, is quite a big man—a man around 6 feet 2 inches tall. Those who have been listening on the radio will have, perhaps, thought that he has made himself seem a little smaller in trying to play partisan politics with a bill in which his Government has changed not one comma.

Allan Peachey: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take exception to references to my height or lack of it. I do not think there is any place in this House for that sort of personal comment.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Speaking to the point of order, I think the member will have to have a substantially thicker skin if he is going to last in this place.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the member taking exception to reference to his height?

Allan Peachey: I am indeed.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I will not comment on that.

Hon Member: Stand up, Mr Deputy Speaker!

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am standing. The member has taken exception. Under Standing Order 116 I ask the member to apologise.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I apologise to the member.

One of the reasons for making that comment—in all seriousness—is that there are many people who need to be acknowledged in the history of the Immigration Bill. One of them whom I would like to acknowledge is the current Speaker, the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith, who, when he was the previous Opposition’s immigration spokesman and I was the Minister, was one of the first to take a bipartisan approach to the development of this bill. He attended seminars, he participated in the development of the policy, and he was quick to say that the then National Opposition would support moderate and balanced legislation that would bring immigration practice into the 21st century. So I commend Mr Speaker, as he now is, for that—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Without bringing him into the debate, of course.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —without bringing him into the debate in anything other than a complimentary way, I say to my dear colleague.

We have here a bill with a rather long history. Its concepts were laid down by former Minister of Immigration Lianne Dalziel, and it was further developed by former Minister of Immigration Paul Swain. Its drafting was developed under my own watch, and the bill was passed through to the new Government after its introduction into the House. I think all members would acknowledge that there have been no amendments to the draft; the bill as it is before the house today has multipartisan support—other than from the Green Party; it has had reservations all along—and the current Government has changed not one comma of the draft it inherited from the previous Government. I say to Mr Peachey and some of his colleagues that there is room for a little bit of bipartisanship in this Parliament and a little bit of acknowledgment of work done—it does not demean anybody.

The second point is that this bill has a clean New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet. It is also fair to say that earlier drafts did not have that vet. Many hours of work were put in by some very able officials and legal advisers, with a bit of help from Ministers, and they brought this bill to the point where it could—and did—receive a clean passage under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Of course, that stands in contradistinction to other legislation before the House at the moment—the “three strikes and you’re out” bill. I commend the current Attorney-General, Mr Finlayson, for taking a very proper and balanced approach and upholding the dignity of his office in making clear that that bill does not pass muster either ethically or constitutionally under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

The third and final point I make, with your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that this legislation—a very major, once-in-a-generation overhaul of immigration law—will not itself be sufficient to modernise immigration practice. That is why the previous Government saw this as one of three main legs, if you like, of the broader Immigration Change Programme. The programme included the modernisation of key categories of immigration policy such as business migration, the skilled migrant category, talent visas, the Recognised Seasonal Employer programme, and some of the more socially focused programmes such as the refugee policy and the ability to reunite families. We need to acknowledge some of the long history of all of that work; again, it goes back not only to the previous Government but to a number of former Ministers and many, many officials who have worked tirelessly to put together the hundreds of pages of policy work that underlie the many, many pages of this bill.

The third leg of the treble is operations, and it is no secret that the operations of the Department of Labour’s Immigration Service have had a fairly chequered history over the years. I acknowledge the current Minister of Immigration, Jonathan Coleman, and his hard-working Associate Minister, Kate Wilkinson, and former Ministers and Associate Ministers, who have done their best to serve the public interest in what is always going to be a very difficult environment. It is difficult because these are human stories: they are individual case-based; no two cases are the same; and the fairest way to interpret the law can sometimes be a matter of judgment. That is why some 5,000 cases a year come across the desk of the Associate Minister and require many, many hours of consultation between that Minister, officials, and other members of Parliament to try to get the best result for New Zealand and for the constituents concerned.

The Labour Opposition fully supports the efforts of the Government to ensure that the management structures and processes of the Department of Labour meet the challenge before it as it is modernised. The Opposition holds no truck with any form of malpractice, any lack of ethics, or any lack of due process. We commend the work of the Government, working with the State Services Commission and the Department of Labour management, to ensure that those processes and systems are able to meet the challenge. There is no politics in this, and there is no partisanship. This is a matter of good governance. Of course, it should always have been so, and I acknowledge the many good officials and Ministers who have done their very best to ensure that it is and will be so. We do not need to again go into individual cases that will have disappointed us all, but we do need to acknowledge that that was not about party politics; it was about human frailty. Our common challenge is to build systems that meet the challenge and the mandate before them.

One final piece of advice to the new Minister is that it will continue to be a challenge to have a seamless and well-functioning department while the information core of the business is rather antiquated. The Minister will be aware that—going back to my time as Minister—that significant work was being done to modernise the information technology systems in the department, because fully one-third of cases are processed without access to the main information database at the time those decisions are made. That was never acceptable on our watch. Significant investment was put into modernising it, and I hope that the Minister will give his best efforts to ensure that the development of modern, seamless systems throughout the department continues. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

• Bill read a second time.

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) : I move, That the Unit Titles Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Unit Titles Bill be considered by the Social Services Committee. The Unit Titles Act 1972 is the primary legislation that governs multi-unit developments such as apartment blocks, townhouses, and office buildings. The Act covers the creation and ownership of unit titles by unit owners, the establishment of bodies corporate to manage developments, and the rights and responsibilities of unit holders and bodies corporate.

I point out by way of background that that Unit Titles Act 1972 was designed for the simple, small-scale residential flats that were prevalent at the time. Often such developments would number—would you believe it—only two or three units. But times have changed. Unit title developments are now much larger and more complex, and they are used to meet much more diverse needs.

The demand for intensive apartment-style living has grown over the last 30 years, and the market has responded, with some unit title developments containing more than 100 units. Some developments are additionally complex, with retail shops, bars, or restaurants located on street level and apartment dwellers residing above. Unit title developments are also growing in sheer number. It is estimated that there are approximately 16,500 unit title developments in New Zealand comprising around—would you believe it—96,000 units. This trend is expected both to continue and to accelerate, particularly in the Auckland region, where it is estimated that within 50 years half a million people will be living in apartments, townhouses, and high-rise buildings.

If we compare the existing legislation, with its small-scale design, with the current needs of the market, we see clearly that the 1972 Act does not provide a sound basis for the creation and sustainable management of intensive multi-unit developments. Its inadequacy in the modern environment means, among other things, that buildings can be insufficiently maintained, that bodies corporate can be hampered by time-consuming decision-making processes, that disputes between owners are seldom resolved, and that there is little consumer information or consumer protection. Furthermore, the process for building developments can be inflexible and overly complex.

The Unit Titles Bill is the result of a comprehensive review of the Act, which was announced in November 2003. The review was initiated in response to widespread views held by the Law Commission, the Auckland Regional Council, and other sector stakeholders that said a review was critical. The Department of Building and Housing has worked closely with officials from the Ministry of Justice and Land Information New Zealand, as well as with a cross-section of key stakeholders.

I am pleased to report that there has been ongoing and widespread support for both the review process and the direction of the proposed changes. This has been demonstrated by the continued engagement and professional goodwill of key stakeholders, such as the New Zealand Law Society, the Property Council of New Zealand, and the New Zealand Institute of Surveyors. The views of those who live and work in unit title developments have also been critical in informing the development of the bill that I am now putting before the House.

The bill is a fundamental rewrite of the existing legislation. Its key changes include promoting sound property management practices. Sound property management practices are essential to preserve the investment people make when they buy a unit in a development. Best practice will be encouraged by the following provisions.

Bodies corporate will be required to develop long-term maintenance plans to protect the capital value of the development and the capital value of units within the development. This means owners will be able to plan for big-ticket maintenance items and pay a regular amount over time, thus avoiding the need for large, one-off lump-sum payments for items such as replacing a lift or for exterior painting. A body corporate needs to be able to act quickly and decisively on behalf of all unit owners and for the good of the development as a whole when repairs and maintenance need to be done.

This bill provides that the body corporate will own the common property, which includes the parts of the development owned collectively. Its responsibilities for repair and maintenance will be widened to include building elements and infrastructure that affects more than a single unit. This will mean, for example, that if an apartment block has a leaky roof, it will be the body corporate’s responsibility to fix it, rather than the responsibility of the owner of the top-floor apartment.

The second major change will make joint decision-making by the body corporate manageable. A streamlined, simple, and easily managed way for decisions to be made by all unit owners collectively is a critical component of this legislation. This bill provides just such a process. The cumbersome requirement for unanimity in body corporate decision-making will be removed. Instead, decisions will be able to be made based on 75 percent agreement by those who vote at a body corporate meeting. This, for example, will make it easier to redevelop a unit title property that has become economically unviable, or to organise to fix the roof or alter a unit plan. It will also prevent hold-outs and will mean that unit owners who do not vote will not be able to hold up the process.

Another fundamental key change is in the area of dispute resolution. Many disputes in unit title developments are created because people just do not know what their rights and responsibilities are when they buy an apartment. Owning and living in an apartment comes with a raft of rights and responsibilities that are not usually necessary when one owns a stand-alone house. This bill takes a first step of clarifying and simplifying the rights and responsibilities of unit owners and the obligations of bodies corporate. This is a crucial part of ensuring that disputes do not arise in the first place. But when disputes do arise, they will be able to be dealt with through mediation or adjudication through the Tenancy Tribunal in the first instance, rather than solely through the courts. This will make resolution faster, cheaper, and more appropriate to the disputes that tend to arise in multi-unit developments.

The fourth key change is around the disclosure environment. Educated consumers are a central principle of the bill. Enabling people to make informed and confident decisions helps to ensure that the management of developments runs smoothly and that fewer disputes arise. [Interruption] There will not be any violence, such as the violence shown by the Hon Trevor Mallard on a number of occasions—we will not see that sort of violence in the unit titles dispute process.

Disclosure requirements will be introduced for purchasers, unit owners, and bodies corporate to enable them to make informed choices. For example, developers will be required to provide information on the construction systems and infrastructure of buildings to the body corporate. This means that the body corporate will be able to make sound decisions when repair and maintenance needs to be undertaken. Purchasers will be entitled to a list of information they can view on request, such as body corporate rules, audited accounts, and maintenance plans. General information on unit title developments will also be available. This means that there will be no surprises—purchasers will know exactly what they are buying into and what their rights and responsibilities are.

In terms of technical changes it is important to ensure that the process of building unit title developments does not impose undue constraints or increased costs on developers, or call for time-consuming changes and alterations. Each subsidiary body corporate will be a member of a head body corporate responsible for the overall management of the development.

This bill brings our unit title law up to date in wide-ranging areas. It addresses the changes that have occurred in property development over the past 36 years, and it brings our unit title law into the 21st century. The bill will provide broader and more adaptable ways of setting up and managing multi-unit living both now and in the foreseeable future.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) : Naturally, Labour will be supporting the Unit Titles Bill.

The speaker who has just resumed his seat, Phil Heatley, has not even dotted one of the i’s or crossed one of the t’s in respect of this bill; all the work was done by the Hon Shane Jones. The previous speaker has done nothing. It is very important that we acknowledge that. It is also very important that people make submissions when this bill goes to the Social Services Committee. You see, since the original bill became law in 1972, lifestyles have changed dramatically in New Zealand. Having lots of apartments—

Hon Phil Heatley: I already said that, George.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Well, the member may have said it, but he probably read it somewhere; he does not know it.

This bill makes sure that the law keeps up with the changes in people’s lifestyles. I say to the Hon Phil Heatley, if he is awake—he probably went to sleep during his own speech—that this bill will be very important for people who live in apartments that have the leaky homes syndrome. Under the Unit Titles Act, people needed to get a 100 percent agreement in order to make decisions; now only a 75 percent agreement will be needed. That will be a huge change. It will be a change that I think people will welcome.

People who live in apartments—many of them are young people attending university—may have had those apartments bought for them by their parents, and they do not understand the Act. This bill will make things far better for them. The fact that we have more than 16,000 unit title developments in this country means that there will be widespread interest. Between the time this bill is read a first time and then sent off to the select committee, Mr Heatley should get someone to read it to him, because I do not think he understands it. He got up and read a speech prepared by his officials, and the pity was that he did not have a dress rehearsal; he got muddled up as he went along. I am not going to waste my time in the Chamber going through all this, other than to say that I hope the select committee will advertise this new bill very widely, because many people need to know about it. They need to know what it will mean for them as individuals so that they can make good submissions on it. One of the very good things about Parliament is the select committee system, where people can have a say.

I conclude by thanking the Hon Shane Jones, because he actually did all the work. I am sure that Phil Heatley may try to grab hold of the bill and promote it as his greatest achievement—even greater than the 69 State houses he will build this year, which is actually down on the number Labour would have built. This bill belongs to people who are living in apartments and feel trapped in the present situation. The bill will allow them to be more widely dealt with. I am sure the New Zealand Law Society will come and make submissions, and I am pleased by that. I am sure the select committee will ask the society to make submissions, as well as many other groups. I welcome this bill. I think the repeal and replacement of the Act is long overdue. Once again, I thank Shane Jones.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast-Tasman) : The Unit Titles Bill is a bill that I am pleased to support. The Minister of Housing, Mr Heatley, gave a very detailed and exact speech and one that was really good. The bill addresses and corrects the problems that developed under the Unit Titles Act 1972. That Act needed modernising, and I am glad that this is something we are in the process of achieving. The Act was not bad legislation when it was first introduced, but the demands of the modern context make it necessary to repeal and replace that legislation with something more attuned to present demands. In essence, this bill addresses the changes that have occurred in property development over the past 36 years.

The legislation enacted 36 years ago was designed for simple, small-scale developments in discrete areas and does not adequately provide for the range, complexity, and size of developments today. The Unit Titles Act of 1972 governs building developments where multiple owners hold unit title property tenure. This is defined as being a specific part of a building, such as an apartment, as well as the shared ownership of common property, such as lobbies and driveways. Such building developments are typically apartment blocks, townhouses, office blocks, and industrial and retail complexes—malls, for instance. As of September 2006 there were an estimated 15,774 unit title developments, comprising 88,817 units, and the number of unit title developments is rapidly increasing. Changes need to be made, as the trend towards unit title development will be continuous and will accelerate. It is estimated that over 500,000 people will be living in apartments, townhouses, and high-rise buildings within 50 years.

Hon Darren Hughes: Who estimates that?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: The people who are involved in demography statistics. The member used to be the Minister of Statistics; he should know.

Hon Darren Hughes: And will be again.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: The member can live in hope. I thank the member for that contribution. It could well be that the honourable member—

Chris Tremain: That is the height of his aspiration.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: That is the height of that member’s aspiration—to go back to where he was—and we wish him well.

Clearly, it is imperative to modernise the Act, and this bill is not something that has been put together lightly. The bill is the result of nearly 5 years of a review and consultation process. It was put on the Order Paper last August, but since then there has been little action on it. National has made this bill a priority and is committed to ensuring its passage through Parliament. I will reiterate the key features of this bill, which in my view succinctly summarise its positive features and how it provides clarity in areas that were previously a little murky.

This bill establishes a real and meaningful legal framework for ownership by different parties, and establishes clear and simple processes for building unit title developments and technical detail for developers. The Minister has already given an amount of this detail, and a Labour speaker asked for further clarification. That is why we are giving it now. Clearness and simplicity are understood as things that should never be made unnecessarily complicated. When something is clear and simple it can be easily followed and hence more progress can be made. I am sure that the developers will be grateful for the transparency of the new guidelines, which will assist them a great deal in their work. If we can make their lives easier, then I am sure this will aid overall progress.

This bill aims to encourage a holistic approach to the management and maintenance of unit title developments. It will clarify the responsibilities of unit owners and bodies corporate, ensuring sound management practices, and will protect long-term capital value. These are highly worthy aims, and when I investigate the minutiae of this legislation I am convinced that these aims will rapidly grow to outcomes. If indeed the duties and powers of unit owners and the body corporate managers and developers are made obvious, then this will minimise disputes about rights and responsibilities, which is always a good thing. It will also reduce costs.

However, speaking of disputes, one part of this bill that is very satisfying to see included is the introduction of a dispute resolution process for unit title matters, covering education, information, mediation, and adjudication. This will enable disputes to be dealt with swiftly, comprehensively, and cost-effectively. This bill provides for recourse for dispute resolution by extending the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal to hear and determine most disputes related to unit titles. The monetary limit for this is $50,000, and the tribunal may not hear cases relating to the title of the land. The bill provides jurisdiction for the District Court to hear cases involving monetary amounts of between $50,000 and $200,000, and jurisdiction for the High Court to hear cases involving sums in excess of $200,000, and includes those cases involving the title of land. As one can see, the bill provides comprehensive cover for the full range of possible disputes.

The bill will provide a clear, flexible governance structure with reduced voting thresholds for bodies corporate in order to make decision making more easily managed and to enable the body corporate to act in the interests of the majority of unit owners. I can envisage the concerns of some people in regard to reduced voting thresholds. Reducing voting thresholds, by their very nature, can lead to more contentious measures becoming more likely to pass. I do not consider, though, that the reduction of voting thresholds in this bill will have that effect, as I consider the previous requirements were too rigid. For example, in the Unit Titles Act 1972 there were a number of situations in which a unanimous resolution was required. I will quote one as an illustration. Section 17(1) states: “Any instrument evidencing any transfer, lease or grant of easement affecting the common property, or land that is to become part of the common property, may be executed by the body corporate if the transfer, lease, or grant has been approved by unanimous resolution of the body corporate.” Section 42 in Part 3 did provide for slightly less restriction, stating that if 80 percent voted in favour of the resolution, this could be taken by the courts and, if the courts so ordered, the resolution could be deemed to be passed unanimously.

However, with the advent of the Unit Titles Bill none of this will be required. The bill stipulates that 75 percent composite votes are required. We say that 75 percent is stringent enough. It is still a high threshold and will allow the body corporate to act in the interests of the majority of unit owners.

Hon Maurice Williamson: How does the member know all of this?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: I have done my work on it. Actually, we have covered this issue at various times over the last 3 years. In not having to take the matter to the court when one lone vote disrupts the passage of resolution, we are removing unnecessary delays and costs.

We in the National Party went into the election promising to streamline and simplify regulations. This is what we are in the process of doing with the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill, and that is precisely what we are doing with the Unit Titles Bill. We are ensuring the decision-making process is not hamstrung by vexatious and frivolous objections. We are about getting things done.

Paul Quinn: Say that again.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: We are about getting things done! The Unit Titles Bill is a lucid and cogent bill. It is an excellent replacement for the Unit Titles Act 1972. The Act needed modernising. This bill does precisely that. It was an Act that analysis has demonstrated was no longer adequate to deal with the range of matters.

Hon David Cunliffe: Well done, Shane Jones!

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Let us refer to Mr Shane Jones—a future Prime Minister, if ever there was one. In May last year Shane Jones said: “The Unit Titles Bill will streamline development processes and allow flexibility for those who are building the really big developments. This will mean up-front costs are reduced and developers can make changes to their plans more easily.” I applaud those comments of Shane Jones. It is the mark of a true political leader. Put some water on him; he will grow. I am pleased the Government is making this bill a priority, as the Act is certainly overdue for a shake-up.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) : I rise to take just a short call on the Unit Titles Bill, because there is no need to prolong the House’s time on this measure. We are in agreement on this bill. There is a sublime moment in the life of an incoming Government when it does not have to do any work of its own; it simply has to put through and tidy up, by a third reading, legislation that has already been prepared by the previous Government.

I am delighted that Mr Quinn was pleased to say how good this legislation is. I am delighted that he is so much in support of it, because it was a Labour Government measure. I am delighted that Mr Auchinvole made reference to the point that the bill is about reducing some compliance measures and taking away red tape, because that is the result of a Labour Government measure.

I will raise a couple of points. The first is that, yes, Shane Jones did the work on the bill. I also congratulate, quite sincerely, the Minister Phil Heatley on bringing it through to the House. The Labour Opposition will support the bill, of course, because it is a sensible measure, and the incoming Government has seen that.

I will refer to a favourite part of the legislation—at the risk of this speech sounding like a Committee stage speech—if members will indulge me for a moment. A favourite part is the bits that relate to voting: clause 83 and the following clauses. I refer to the threshold for voting for bodies corporate, which is important. It was one of the most significant changes we could make in modernising the legislation applying to unit titles. Numerous people, up and down this country, having gone into apartments and units, will attest to those occasions when getting to a unanimous decision with the body corporate was just impossible. Individuals hold out on agreement of things that have to move forward, whether it is a roof repair, new paint job, colour scheme, or whatever. One or two people hold out on a decision that the majority is in favour of and therefore impede the progress and, I presume, the comfort, in many instances, of the people who own the principal units.

The reduction of the threshold on special resolutions to 75 percent—although general resolutions can be carried by a majority—is still a high threshold. It is not simply a matter of 50 percent plus one who agree with a change the body corporate is considering; it is, in fact, a very substantial majority. Three-quarters of the body corporate principal unit holders need to agree before a change can be made. That will be really helpful, because there have been instances when people have held out and have been very difficult to move when trying to arrive at a resolution about a repair, maintenance, improvement, or service issue for a body corporate.

But, just to be sure, in relation to the 25 percent of people who may disagree, a dispute resolution process has been put in place. Access to mediation and arbitration around that process is a good measure so that a minority view is not excluded or completely railroaded by the majority, but there is room and provision for a process to arrive at the resolution of disputes. That is an improvement.

Yes, the 1972 legislation is now anachronistic. It is unsuitable for the kinds of developments we have seen emerge in the intervening years, and this bill will bring it up to date. If there are improvements to be made on this bill, then they will be made at the select committee. If there are improvements to be made even after the substantial consultation process that was engaged in prior to the drafting of this bill, then those improvements can be made at the select committee. I commend the bill to the House.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : On behalf of the Green Party I will make a brief call in support of this bill. We are pleased to see the bill finally come back to the House. When Labour originally introduced the bill last year we were delighted to support it then, and we are really pleased that National has picked it up.

It is certainly high time for this as the original Unit Titles Act 1972 is, of course, some 37 years old. I am sure that all the key stakeholders in this area will be relieved that this legislation has been given some priority in the new Parliament. It is also good to see that the original review process involved a lot of the key groups involved in the sector—for example, bodies corporate themselves, local and regional authorities, developers, surveyors, people like the Law Society, building surveyors, the Insurance Council, and the Real Estate Institute. There have already been some 148 submissions that were received as part of the review process that formed this legislation, so I hope that this bill will be a sound reflection of a whole lot of work that has already happened.

In terms of the actual content of the bill, as far as we can ascertain at this stage we are in support of all the key provisions. One provision we are particularly pleased about is that the need for unanimous body corporate decisions will be removed, so that in future only 75 percent agreement will be needed by those who vote at body corporate meetings. One is particularly put in mind of the leaky buildings situation, where people are desperate to try to get a decision so that they can make progress on solving leaky building problems. Where people are holding out on that, it has a detrimental impact on everybody involved in the building. At the moment it takes only one person to hold out for a whole process to be stopped. So that provision is really good, though I note also that John Gray from the group that has done a lot of work on leaky buildings does have a few concerns that at times, in terms of the people holding out, it has been beneficial in relation to what needs to happen. I am sure that the select committee will look at that.

Another area we are pleased about is the shifting of adjudication from the courts to the Tenancy Tribunal. This is really good in the context of access to justice, but it does need to be accompanied by an amendment to the Residential Tenancies Act to permit representation for those who are taking cases to the tribunal. Apartment owners will not always have the expertise needed to present their own case, and this is certainly similar to changes that we had hoped to see in the residential tenancies amending legislation, but which I believe National is planning to take out. We believe that anyone going to the Tenancy Tribunal should have the right to qualified representation, because in most cases tenants—and in this case unit title owners—do not have the legal expertise or background to be able to present their cases adequately. I am certainly hopeful that during the select committee process this will, again, be something that we can look at.

The whole question of unit titles has become a lot more urgent in recent years with the huge increase in developments. About a year ago there were over 95,000 units. Of course, many of these were in Auckland, where ever-growing numbers of people live in this way. So it has become a critical issue that we change the laws so that people are protected at all stages of the transaction and we do not see some of the unfortunate situations that have arisen in the past. The Green Party will be supporting this legislation.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) : It is entirely appropriate that I stand here today as a Māori woman to talk to the Unit Titles Bill. Our whakatauākī, our tribal traditions, have always made explicit the connection between wāhine, our women, and whenua, our land. As we say: “He wahine, he whenua, ka ngaro te tāngata.”—“For a woman and land, men perish.” Women will be revered and respected as te whare tāngata—literally, the house of people. Our words are interchangeable—to be hapū also means, as well as “subtribe”, “to be pregnant”. Whānau relates to the act of giving birth as well as to the family. And when we give birth, our whenua, the placenta or afterbirth, and the pito, the umbilical cord, are returned to the whenua, the land, making forever the link between that newborn baby and Papatūānuku—Mother Earth.

I give this very brief summary of our world views on land as a means of an introduction to the importance of land to Māori. Just as we must value every woman as the bearer of the iwi—the generations to come—we must also guard and protect Mother Earth with that same reverence. It is because of the strength of our beliefs that our people have literally walked the land in hīkoi,, acknowledging the special cultural, spiritual, emotional, and physical significance of this relationship. We are tāngata whenua, people of the land; the land and people are inseparable.

So we take great interest in the proposal in this bill to update the law regarding the subdivision, development, and management of land. We take great interest in the issues around ownership and management of land, buildings, and facilities, and we will always be concerned to see whether any developments that are put forward will diminish Māori rights or whether they can create opportunities. In our world view, land is a taonga tuku iho, a treasure to be preserved, respected, and protected. If land and buildings are to be subdivided into unit title developments owned by unit holders, we want to be assured that tāngata whenua are fully involved.

Those members who have looked at the Order Paper over the last few days will have noticed that sitting at No. 5 place for members’ bills is a Māori Party bill generated by the call that no more Māori land should be taken under the Public Works Act. In that bill, my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell is recommending that Māori owners be given the first right of refusal to purchase land that the Crown no longer requires for use as intended. I am interested to see whether in the Unit Titles Bill there will be any recognition made for land taken under the Public Works Act and never returned.

In this bill today we are being offered the opportunity for a deviation from section 11 of the Resource Management Act, which applies to restrictions on the subdivision of land, and from Part 10 of the same Act, which is about subdivision and reclamation. The question that raises for the Māori Party is whether it creates the potential for confusion, as another critical part of section 11 is the requirement that any subdivision that is to be considered for Māori land can be dealt with only under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. We will be looking for clarity, therefore, on section 11. We wonder what other considerations may need to be made in relation to Māori land, including lands upon which Treaty settlements are currently in negotiation.

As I said earlier, the importance we place on land as tāngata whenua is all-encompassing. Our land provides us with a tangible link to our tūpuna. It is the site of our genealogical connection to all of our bloodline, so we take seriously the role of guardianship, our kaitiakitanga responsibilities, on behalf of those who have come before us and those who descend from us. But it would be stretching the rainbow to say that the management of the multiple ownership of land is easy. Indeed, the ongoing fragmentation of multiple ownership is a direct result of the individualisation of title, and of a failure to recognise the principles of collective use and occupation. Māori communities on multiple-owned land will also often not face the standard market conditions that other landowners face. They may have limited access to markets, capital is often scarce, information is frequently incomplete, and the requirements for the decision making of the collective are highly complex.

There are currently serious problems with the subdivision of Māori land, and particularly with the fact that the Māori Land Court will not agree to the partition of Māori land. Getting an application for an individual partition of land through is difficult, because of the thresholds of agreement needed. We need to find another way in which to protect lands from misuse and/or sale, while also allowing whānau and hapū to develop papakāinga housing projects if there is a reasonable level of consent. One way might be to identify land suitable for a Māori housing scheme, and to lower the thresholds for the partitioning of those lands, while also placing restrictions on the sale of the partitioned land.

At present, under the law there is also no capacity to enable the owners of Māori customary and freehold land in a particular area or papakāinga to join with another one and collectively manage their lands—to do things like restrict the sale of land in order to maintain the integrity of the papakāinga. The question that needs to be put to the select committee is whether the bill can be modified to take into account special Māori needs to protect their papakāinga. This is a potential opportunity offered by the bill, and we will be interested to see how submitters address it.

Another approach we as a party have considered is to introduce proposals to enable leasehold titles to be commercially bankable. We are interested in the possibilities of third-party financial institutions that may be interested in investing in multiple-owned land, so we are interested in the management proposals around bodies corporate that would bring together all unit owners in a development to cooperate and manage unit title developments. Suffice it to say we have as many proposals and solutions as there are issues inherent in the development of land and resources to better enable whānau, hapū, and iwi to advance on a socially and economically sustainable basis. So we are extremely interested in the evolution of the modern framework that the Minister suggests is needed to achieve the joint ownership and management of land, buildings, and facilities.

Of course we are always going to be wary of the actions of the State as they pertain to the upholding of the rangatiratanga of our land. We have to think back only to the sale of prime Coromandel land at Whenuakite, the controversy regarding Rangiputa Station on the Karikari Peninsula, or the proposed sale of the Taurewa land blocks to know how deeply our people feel about the mismanagement of land and land disposal processes. We will be interested to see whether Hauraki, Tūwharetoa, Ngāti Kahu, the Tainui Waka Alliance, the Māori Council, and other iwi who have been so closely involved with these activities will take up the opportunity to scrutinise this bill, and to share their views about whether it creates opportunities or whether in fact it does threaten Māori rights.

Finally, I will leave with the oft-quoted words “Whatungarongaro he tangata, toitū he whenua.”—“Each generation passes in its turn, but the land remains.” We are absolutely dedicated in our pursuit of protecting the integrity of our land, but we are also absolutely dedicated towards the possibilities of development and opportunities for advancing the social, economic, and cultural progress of tangata whenua. We are not satisfied that this bill adequately facilitates Māori housing development, and we will also be keenly listening to the Minister in subsequent stages to hear how those aspirations will be meet. We will support this bill in order to enable the kōrero to be heard.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) : I am happy to take a call on the Unit Titles Bill. I will take a full call, because I think there are a number of issues to address. I am happy to say that from the outset officials at the Department of Building and Housing came to me and said they thought this legislation could easily go through in my name, because it has implications for my portfolio, or that it could be transferred to Mr Heatley, the Minister of Housing.

I did not take too long to decide about that. I thought it was best to hand it to the Minister of Housing because, frankly, I thought it related way more to the role that Mr Heatley fills. As the Minister of Housing he deals with tenancy and other matters. So I thought the bill should be his rather than be under the building and construction portfolio, which is more to do with the physical bricks and mortar. Having said that, there is some crossover between the two portfolios, and I am delighted that Parliament is finally addressing the issue.

The Unit Titles Act was passed in 1972, and in 1972 I was a young university student at Auckland University. In downtown Auckland—now so ably represented by Nikki Kaye—there were almost no residential buildings in the city, at all. There were some State-owned flats in Greys Avenue, I think, but apart from that and a couple of halls of residence—O’Rorke Hall and the other one in Symonds Street—the actual idea of big apartment blocks in central Auckland just did not exist. Even in the outer suburbs, a block of three or four flats joined together was a reasonably big development in terms of multi-ownership.

We have really changed the way society functions. If we go into central Auckland now, we see that there are apartment buildings for Africa. Everywhere we look around Beach Road, I think it is—down the bottom on the way to the railway station—there is nothing but apartment building after apartment building. Let me share with the House some of those numbers. I am told that by September 2006—this is a couple of years out of date, but it is still worthwhile hearing—there were 15,774 unit title developments in New Zealand, comprising 88,800 units. That is quite amazing. It is amazing that we have gone from having almost none to having about 88,800 units by 2006—and it has not stopped.

It is fair to say that that rate of development has pretty much slowed down right now because of the economic downturn and the financial crisis that the world is facing. In fact, a lovely clip I saw on the news the other night said there is such a financial crisis in New York that the Mafia has had to lay off five judges! When the economic crisis is over, we will see the building sector come back into its own and we will see a number of big apartment buildings being built in downtown Auckland, as we will in Wellington and maybe even in other parts of New Zealand. It is estimated, I am told, that around 500,000 New Zealanders will be living in apartments, townhouses or high-rises within 50 years, and that sort of demographic indicates that it was time to get on and do something.

So what is the problem? Well, the problem is that when there are multiple owners of a large building such as a large apartment building, there has to be some legislation that governs how the ownership of that building works. There has to be legislation that governs the rights of the individual apartment owners; the rights of the collective body corporate to override the rights of an individual who does not like what is going on; and how we get some form of the democracy we in Parliament so love, whereby a majority of people can have a say on what goes on. I know it upsets some people, but a minority view may get overridden.

The whole point of this legislation is to provide some clarity in areas where there is no question that the legislation was quite murky in the past. Legislation passed in 1972 would not have had any chance to see the society we live in today and to look at how to deal with it. This bill establishes a real and meaningful legal framework for ownership by different parties, and it establishes a clear and simple process for building unit title developments, and for technical details for developers. That is important, as well.

We are all aware of what other people call “leaky homes”. I do not refer to them as that; I always call them “rotting homes”, because “leaky homes” is not the right phrase for them. We know that there are rotting buildings in those multi - unit title developments. Some of those owners are really in strife because the legislation does not give them the power to get agreement across body corporate members. There have to be only one or two standouts who are demanding something different and the majority can suffer. Getting some clearness and simplicity into this legislation for all the people involved—the developers, the individual owners, and the group appointed to represent a body corporate’s rights and responsibilities to outside organisations—is a really good step in the right direction.

The bill clarifies the responsibilities of unit owners and bodies corporate, it will ensure sound management practices, and it will protect long-term capital values. I think that is another important thing. No one in the House would deny that those are worthy aims, and it is good to see the multiparty support that the bill has been enjoying. I am convinced that these aims will be fulfilled in the legislation. If, indeed, the duties and powers of unit owners, body corporate managers, and developers are made obvious, then I think disputes will be dramatically minimised. There is a demand for that clarity. If people know what the duties and powers and aims of those people are, it is very unlikely that there will be anywhere near the number of disputes that there would be if it was murky and no one could tell what was going on. I think the reduction in disputes across the board will be one of the best things that come out of this. Having said that, I think it is likely that there will always be disputes when large numbers of people are involved. In any large organisation there will be people who will think they have either been disenfranchised or treated badly, and so on.

The bill provides recourse for dispute resolution by extending the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal to hear and determine most disputes related to unit titles, and that is a good step in the right direction. I do not think anybody could deny that. There is a monetary limit of $50,000 for this, so the Tenancy Tribunal can hear cases that relate to a sum that is meaningful. The bill has quite specific definitions of what one does from that point upwards. Beyond the $50,000 monetary limit, jurisdiction is given to the District Court. It can hear a dispute relating to sums of between $50,000 and $200,000. Jurisdiction then moves to the High Court if the dispute concerns a sum in excess of $200,000.

Those are quite sensible levels, I would have thought. In terms of a dispute concerning more than $200,000, people will need a fairly robust legal process to go through a large claim like that. But if the amount is less than $50,000, taking the dispute to the Tenancy Tribunal and, hopefully, getting through the levels of adjudication and all the other support that is provided is probably the best way to go.

The bill provides a clear, flexible governance structure, with reduced voting thresholds for bodies corporate to make decisions. I think I said that before. What I think is really important is that it stipulates that a 75 percent composite vote is required. Now, 75 percent is, I guess, random. Some people might think it should be 66.6 percent—two-thirds—and some might want it to be 90 percent. In the end, after a lot of consultation and development, the 75 percentile mark was set. It is pretty hard to get 75 percent of all parties in a particular large building to agree to a particular regime if it is a stupid or nonsensical regime that is being proposed.

I think that provision allows for good decisions to be made, but it takes away that one rogue element that might hold out for some grossly unrealistic or ridiculous settlement. That person could hold it up for the rest, and resolution could take for ever. In some cases, that is happening right now, and it is unfair to everybody. So, yes, the rights of the minority might be getting trampled on a little bit, but frankly getting the majority of people signed up to something, agreeing with it, and going with it, is great.

NICKY WAGNER (National) : I rise to support the Unit Titles Bill, and it is good to see that it has been so positively received in the House today. It is well and truly time to update and streamline the Unit Titles Act, which was originally passed in 1972.

Over the last 36 years living trends have changed dramatically. We have just heard from Maurice Williamson about what Auckland looked like in 1972. We can see the vast change in the way people live. More New Zealanders are living in cities; many more are living in higher-density suburbs and in inner-city apartments. Multi-unit and high-rise apartment developments have become common and very popular. It is a modern trend, both locally and internationally, and it is forecast to continue. Many more New Zealanders are expected to move into apartments, townhouses, and high-rise buildings over the next few years.

The original 1972 Act was designed to manage developments in the time when they were mostly pretty simple and small. Back in the 1970s even the language was different. Unit titles were most commonly used when one was building a couple of ownership flats—that is a term from the 1970s—and for that purpose, the Unit Titles Act worked well. But, as bigger and more complex multi-unit developments became common, changes needed to be made.

This bill is the result of an in-depth review of the Act undertaken in 2004, but it has taken another 5 years and a change of Government to bring action. It was interesting to hear Maryan Street talking about Shane Jones’ contribution to this bill. It is just a pity that something that could streamline and cut bureaucracy was not brought to the House.

The aim of this bill is to streamline and to simplify, and it is part of National’s push to simplify all regulations and to cut through inefficient bureaucracy. The aim is to provide increased flexibility and to produce simple and effective legislation for the setting up and management of unit titles and multi-unit living now and into the future. The main problems identified with the Act when it is applied to larger and more complex development revolve around joint decision-making, building maintenance—and, of course, we see that continuing with the rotting homes story—financial management, and also consumer protection and dispute resolution.

Members of the House need only watch one of the many television programmes that focus on the neighbours from hell to understand the tensions and the problems that can arise with greater numbers of people moving to small living spaces. With increased density of dwellings, neighbours are required to work together more closely in order to organise their living arrangements and to share facilities. This new bill provides clear processes for doing this.

The bill will modernise the governance framework. It is designed to make joint decision-making by the bodies corporate simpler, because right now there are developments where any action by the body corporate is stalled. That is because the body corporate is unable to get a unanimous resolution, and a contrary neighbour can control and enrage dozens of unit holders. It is happening every day. As has been said, the new bill will lower that voting threshold to 75 percent in favour, so that one person can no longer hold the rest of the body corporate to ransom.

The bill will clarify the position of unit holders, the body corporate, managers and developers in relation to their duties and powers. The clarification in itself will immediately reduce disputes about the rights and responsibilities of neighbours.

The bill will also establish a resolution service for anything to do with unit title matters. The service will be required to provide information and education on how unit titles work, and, if necessary, to mediate or adjudicate. It will also introduce new ownership structures that are designed to be flexible and that can manage large complex developments, particularly those—as has been mentioned—that may have a mixed use, such as living and working, restaurant use, and other uses, and also those that have a multi-stage development period. One of the problems with the current legislation is that it is difficult to do a part of a development without getting oneself tied up with bureaucracy.

Finally, the bill will introduce a mandatory disclosure regime for buyers, sellers, and developers. This is really to make consumers better informed so that they can make better choices in a more transparent and accountable way.

Interestingly enough, the most common area for dispute in multi-owned developments is the management of maintenance, or, really, the management of finance for maintenance. This bill will require mandatory, long-term maintenance plans and long-term maintenance finance organisation. That will be based on good, sound property management practices, but it will be flexible enough to be tailored to the development’s needs.

This bill has been long-awaited and the industry supports it. There has been a wide consultation process and feedback has been generally positive. I am delighted that National is addressing the problem of an outdated Act.

Hon Trevor Mallard: National is addressing it?

NICKY WAGNER: National is addressing it. We promised to simplify and streamline regulation, and this is another example of us taking action very early in our term. I am sure that many multi-unit developments will be better organised, and will become better places to live, now that we can get rid of the old Unit Titles Act and the way that it empowers neighbours from hell.

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) : I rise to support the Unit Titles Bill. This is very important legislation for the people of Auckland Central. There are over 21,000 people living in the central business district of Auckland and there are about 9,000 unit titles in the city, so it will have a big impact in my electorate. I am very happy that the Minister of Housing has made this bill a priority, because it is my understanding that the review began in 2003. It was a long time coming—5 years in the process—but we are here today, and I acknowledge that there is widespread support for this bill both across the House and in the industry.

My colleague Maurice Williamson noted what Auckland Central looked like back in the 1970s. Unfortunately, I was not born back then, but I can tell members what it looks like now. One of the most staggering points that has been made is that in the next 50 years, over half a million people will be living in either those types of developments or multi-use properties. So is very important legislation. I am glad that the Minister has made it a priority, and I cannot wait until it is passed. I was at a meeting with a residents’ advisory group in the central business district in the last week, and this issue is a major priority for that particular group because of the impact on all the people in the central business district.

This bill does four or five key things that are very positive. The bill not only deals with the disputes resolution process—making sure that such cases are not dealt with in the courts but via mediation and the disputes tribunal—but also seeks to prevent some of those cases from coming about. It does so by trying to clarify and simplify some of the rights and responsibilities of unit owners and the obligations of bodies corporate. I think that is pretty important. At a time when New Zealanders and New Zealand businesses are really suffering under the recession, it is really important that we are not clogging up the courts with some of these cases. Given that New Zealand now has such a large number of properties that fall under these rules and we have issues like rotting and leaky homes, I think it is really important that we are bringing in some legislation that seeks to clarify and simplify the rights and responsibilities of unit owners and the obligations of bodies corporate.

I pick up on Sue Bradford’s point that by changing the disputes process to mean that a number of these disputes would go through the tribunal, we are actually improving access to justice for a lot of people. I think that is a really important point, as well. Another key thing this bill does is that it enables decisions to be made on the agreement of 75 percent of those who vote at a body corporate meeting, which I think is a really important point. I have lived in an apartment. It is very difficult to get 100 percent agreement, and it often leads to gridlock. So we have got rid of a cumbersome requirement, and that is really important.

The other key point the bill addresses is around sound property management practices, which I think is important particularly for young buyers. I know that in Auckland Central there are an increasing number of younger families in the central city because apartments tend to be cheaper, and that is a key way to access cheaper housing. They tend to go into apartments in the central city. It is key that we are introducing something that will enable bodies corporate to develop long-term maintenance plans to protect the capital value of some of those apartments and developments. It can be pretty heartbreaking for some of those young buyers if they end up in a situation—as some of them have—whereby they are effectively left with big-ticket items for maintenance. So it is quite important that we promote sound property management practices.

This is very important legislation for the Auckland central business district. It will affect a large percentage of the 21,000 people living in Auckland Central. In my view, the legislation cannot be passed quickly enough. It is an updating of the law, but—as we have seen from the figures that half a million New Zealanders in the future will be living in these types of multi-unit dwellings—the issue will not go away and it is important that we address it as soon as possible. I commend the Minister for making this a priority, particularly for the people of Auckland Central. I commend the Minister in particular for the provisions around dispute resolution, because I think it will lead to better access to justice for many people and it will prevent some of the heartbreak for some of those young families who end up in situations like that.

The last point I want to address is a technical change that is dealt with in the bill around large-staged or mixed-use unit title developments. It enables them to be layered where two or more bodies corporate are managed under an umbrella body corporate. This basically means that an apartment block, a shopping centre, and a car-park in a multi-use development could each have its own subsidiary body corporate to manage the interests of each group of owners. That is really important, because there are a number of those within Auckland Central, as I said before, and it is quite clear that this legislation will enable each subsidiary body corporate to be a member of a head body corporate that is responsible for the overall management of the development.

I again commend the Minister on making this bill a priority and I look forward to the passing of this legislation, because over the last 3 years we have seen a tremendous change in the landscape of New Zealand—particularly in Auckland Central.

HEKIA PARATA (National) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. I am delighted to rise and support the Unit Titles Bill, because it resonates with many of the values that characterise this very fresh, new, National-led Government.

First of all, the bill is characterised by action. This bill has been 5 years in development and has languished since August on the Order Paper, but this National-led Government has gripped its responsibilities. It has charged into the commitments that we made to clarify people’s rights, to introduce simplicity, and to streamline regulations so that New Zealanders are able to get on and live their lives without undue interference by overweening Government. Action is one of the first hallmarks of this new National-led Government. The bill is the result of nearly 5 years of review and consultation processes, and it overhauls legislation from 1972. As my younger colleague Nikki Kaye mentioned, she was not born in 1972; I only just made it myself. But I am able to stand and talk about how times have changed since the time when one or two units were built to the time, now, when we experience multilevel ones.

Another hallmark of this fresh, new, National-led Government is our interest in clarity: people understanding clearly what their rights are and the processes by which they may exercise those rights, and having the opportunity to protect those rights. We are interested in streamlining and simplifying regulations. This bill recognises that. It has widespread support from both the Opposition and the industry because all parties recognise that the opportunity to clarify regulations, so that each participant in this process can conduct his or her particular level of business without undue ambiguity, is a great plus of the bill.

The bill clarifies property rights: where they lie—with whom they lie—and which level of protection relates to each of those property rights. That is yet another hallmark of this fresh, new, National-led Government.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Introduced in May 2008.

HEKIA PARATA: I say to Mr Mallard that it protects value so that people who have invested in this kind of property understand what kind of value accrues to the investment they have made, and that over time that value will be protected. In this bill there are, of course, provisions for long-term future-focused plans to ensure that owners, developers, bodies corporate, and managers of bodies corporate are very clear about what their responsibilities are over time. The provisions also ensure that the capital value is protected over time and does not disappear because there has been insufficient provision for the future. The legislation is inclusive: it involves all participants in the process and it has included people who have an interest over time. Everyone who needed to be involved has been involved and has had the opportunity to contribute to this new legislation.

The bill reflects realism, which is yet another hallmark of this fresh, new, National-led Government. We understand that it is almost impossible—as anyone living in a family of more than one will know—to achieve 100 percent agreement all of the time on all issues. So this bill provides a 75 percent threshold, which in itself is still a relatively high threshold, as those of us who have ever had the experience of using Te Ture Whenua Maori Act will know. The 75 percent threshold is still a very high threshold, but it is much more realistic in terms of what kind of consensus might be achieved in collective living arrangements. It is realistic, also, because this is an increasing trend of living: housing in the future, particularly in intensely urban areas, is likely to involve more and more multi-unit habitation.

That leads me to yet a further characteristic in the litany of characteristics of this fresh, new, National-led Government, and that is—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Nearly! Nearly!

HEKIA PARATA: The member is hopeful. The characteristic is future focus. This bill introduces mandatory long-term maintenance plans and long-term maintenance funds—scaleable and appropriate to the size and complexity of the development—in order to support sound property development. It also recognises—as I said earlier, and as my colleague the new member of Parliament for Auckland Central, Nikki Kaye, indicated—that changes are occurring in this regard, most particularly in Auckland, and it is important for us to recognise research that estimates that over half a million people will be living in apartments, townhouses, and high-rise buildings within the next 50 years. The list goes on.

Hon Members: And on, and on, and on.

HEKIA PARATA: I know. It is riveting, is it not? Members have the opportunity to comment on the orchestral delight of the resonant values of this fresh, new, National-led Government.

We are doing things differently, with the emphasis on the verb “doing”. We are getting things done, and we are only fresh into this new term of our Government. Our approach is to get on and do what needs to be done, rather than talking about it. In the process we continue to reflect in operational practice the values that I have just rehearsed to members, which are hallmarks of this fresh, new, National-led Government.

I commend this bill to the House. It has taken 5 years; it has had multipartisan support, which in itself is to be commended. Those people who have worked on it in the past are to be recognised, respected, and thanked for their contribution. We look forward to it enjoying continued support as it progresses through the House and passes into law, so that people who choose to be involved in and live in this kind of investment, and to enjoy a quality of life under a fresh, new, National-led Government, will quickly and expeditiously be able to do so. Kia ora tātou.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : I supported Lianne Dalziel when she did the work on the Unit Titles Bill, I supported it when the Labour Government introduced it, and I still support it.

CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) : I rise to take a call on the Unit Titles Bill. I will probably take a slightly different angle from the one the speakers before me this evening have taken in regard to this bill. Before I take this angle, I acknowledge the member on the other side of the House Shane Jones—as Labour members have wanted us to do all night—and the work he put into this bill before it came to the House.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Lianne Dalziel actually did the work.

CHRIS TREMAIN: I understand that Mr Jones, as the previous Minister of Building and Construction, put some work into it after Lianne Dalziel. It probably does not come as a surprise that he was unable to bring it to the House at the time. He got tied up in some issues around showers and water flow that prevented him from bringing this bill to the House at the time. It is along that line of showers, water flow, and the new green agenda that I really want to take this debate tonight. We see tonight the National Government following the new green agenda in bringing this Unit Titles Bill into the House.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

CHRIS TREMAIN: Opposition members laugh, but let me explain it clearly. Today in the Chamber Jeanette Fitzsimons stood up and asked the Minister of Finance how National is supporting this Green agenda and where National is taking the whole green agenda. Here is a concrete example of the new green agenda: the Unit Titles Bill. We are talking about legislation that modernises unit titles. Unit titles are about building high-rise housing comprehensively and closely together within cities. It stops the encroachment out into the rural boundaries and pushing them out, which is something I know the Green Party has been very conscious of—the pushing out of the city limits. We have legislation that is very important in that regard. It modernises the unit titles legislation and encourages the construction of quality high-rise developments and the concentration of public services within more comprehensive cities. In that regard I think this is important legislation.

I will move away from that topic and back to the city of Napier, and to your own province of Hawke’s Bay, Mr Assistant Speaker. We have seen significant changes in the real estate landscape over the last 5 to 10 years all around New Zealand, but particularly in my own province and my home town of Napier. The Ahuriri environment was once a place for fishing boats—and it still has fishing boats—but we are now seeing the development of places like the Ahuriri Quadrant and West Quay apartments. They are significant-sized apartment complexes that have been built with real quality of design. They have allowed people to live in much closer proximity. We are again following the green agenda that we have been talking about, which is something the National Government is following significantly by supporting this legislation.

The developments are helping to provide green-collar jobs in the building and sustainable development of those townhouses. There has been fantastic development of the Ahuriri landscape. There are now literally hundreds of apartments there that have changed the whole landscape. In fact, my own mother has purchased one of those properties, which she will benefit from living in.

New Zealanders have struggled over time with moving off the quarter acre section, away from their gardens, and into a high-rise complex building. I know that my mother has struggled with that. But there are significant benefits to moving, in terms of increased security, and a lack of having to focus on the garden. A whole raft of things have really helped her in her retirement years. I think we will see those benefits be significantly enhanced with this sort of bill. The bill will improve the legislation around unit titles, and in that regard I think it will be excellent.

Not only will the green economy benefit from this but so will Napier and other such provincial centres, which will develop their real estate infrastructure through this bill. I think we may even see Hastings in the Tukituki electorate benefit from this type of legislation.

Nikki Kaye: Auckland Central.

CHRIS TREMAIN: Yes, Auckland Central. There is a fine example of the green economy in action. The wonderful member from Auckland Central, Nikki Kaye, is driving the new green agenda for that part of New Zealand. It is great to be up here in the Chamber, supporting her in that regard.

This is wonderful legislation. It is excellent to see Phil Heatley doing an excellent job as the new housing Minister. He stepped up to the plate and delivered an outstanding speech today on the new Unit Titles Bill. He has been absolutely outstanding.

Hon Dr Richard Worth: A much-loved Minister.

CHRIS TREMAIN: He is a much-loved Minister.

I will talk a little about some of the details of this bill. It makes changes to some of the current legislation, and I just put it on the record that it will clarify the duties and powers of unit owners. It will also provide clarification for the bodies corporate and body corporate management developers, in order to reduce disputes about rights and responsibilities, which are a real issue.

A significant issue arose with one of my constituents in respect of the development of the old Inland Revenue Department building in Napier, when the development was changed from the Inland Revenue Department building into a unit title block of apartments. There was an issue with the lift shafts in the building, whereby one of my constituents lived on the third floor and there was a whole drama about whether one of the—

Hon Trevor Mallard: What are you saying was going on in the lift, then?

CHRIS TREMAIN: The lifts would not go, Mr Mallard. My constituent was an older woman who had to walk up and down the stairs. It became a significant issue for the body corporate and for the manager of the body corporate.

I hope this bill will lay the groundwork so that the disputes resolution process between tenants and the body corporate can make a significant difference, which will ensure that constituents like mine in Napier benefit from this legislation. We are benefiting from the new green agenda that National is pushing through Parliament today, with concrete examples of that agenda—no pun intended—to ensure that we look after the environment, that we concentrate development in cities, and that we do not encroach into our rural landscapes. This is very important so that our farmers can continue to farm their land.

I ask members to remember that, as the Greens tell us, the population is exploding. Members may not know this, but New Zealand currently feeds some 55 million people. We do not want to drive down that figure by continuing that rush to develop the cities out into those green spaces, so this bill helps us to concentrate growth in the cities. If we are to grow in the cities, the quality of design for these sorts of apartments is important. We do not want people to congregate in high-rise towers that are without an element of design and greenery; we want to ensure that we have a fine landscape and environment for our residents to live in. I think this bill will help to ensure that we do that.

I have no hesitation in standing here tonight in support of the Unit Titles Bill. I have no hesitation in recommending it for the excellent bill that it is and for the excellent work that the Minister Phil Heatley has done in pushing the new green agenda through the House tonight. I think it is absolutely fantastic. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

• Bill read a first time.

• Bill referred to the Social Services Committee.

Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Minister for Land Information) : I move, That the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee. This bill is an omnibus bill as provided for in Standing Order 258(1)(e). The intent of Reserves and Other Lands Disposal bills, known as ROLD bills, is to make non-controversial changes to land status that cannot otherwise be easily dealt with. These bills deal with authorisations, transfers, and validations of matters relating to Crown land, reserves, and other land held for public or private purposes. The last Reserves and Other Lands Disposal legislation was enacted in 2003. There are now sufficient matters to warrant this present bill.

I will shortly refer to the detailed contents of the bill, but may I say that although this is certainly technical legislation, it provides for an important set of law changes, with significant impacts. This bill deals with land throughout our country at all four cardinal points of the compass. Looking north we have provisions dealing with the reserve at Māhinepua Bay in North Auckland—in the Speaker’s electorate of Rodney. To the south we have provisions tidying up the administration of the Winton Racecourse in Southland—the Deputy Prime Minister’s electorate. Looking east we find a number of land-related changes, including a reserve on Port Chalmers, which is on the east coast of the South Island. To the west we have the Sugar Loaf Islands off the west coast of the North Island, near New Plymouth.

This legislation deals with some very iconic areas of New Zealand. I am sure that not too many pieces of legislation can lay claim to resolving issues with three of our national parks, Kahurangi, Paparoa, and Westland; one of the most iconic features of Dunedin city, the Octagon; all of the volcanic cones dotted around Auckland city; and an offshore island marine sanctuary. The benefits of this legislation are considerable. There will be real benefits for people throughout the country, from the community in Port Chalmers, whose residents will see their local bowling club’s lease formalised, to the Otago Aero Club, which will have its future secured, and to the art aficionados in Auckland, who will appreciate the extension of the Auckland Art Gallery.

The bill has no fewer than 58 clauses covering 17 items. Nine were proposed by the Department of Conservation, six by local authorities, and one each by the Ministry of Transport and the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board. Clauses 1 to 3 relate to the title of the bill—its commencement and its binding of the Crown. Clause 4 is a standard provision in this type of legislation. It authorises the Registrar-General of Land to carry out any technical actions needed to give effect to the legislation. Clause 5 repeals sections 48(A)(6), 114(5), and 115(6) of the Reserves Act 1977, to correct an oversight that limited the range of reserves over which local authorities as administering bodies could exercise various powers.

Clauses 6 to 9 amend the definition of Albert Park in Auckland City so that the Auckland Art Gallery can be extended on to land that is currently part of the park. I understand that there is now a difference of view on this item between the Auckland City Council, which requested it, and the Auckland Regional Council, but maybe that is a matter best resolved at the select committee. Clauses 10 and 11 update a Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act from 1915 so that the decision-making power over the excavation of volcanic cones or hills adjoining reserves in Auckland will be with the Minister of Conservation instead of the “Governor in Council”. Clauses 12 to 14 remove a restriction in a previous Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act on the erection of any structures in the Octagon in Dunedin city. That is to better enable the management of that piece of land by the Dunedin City Council.

Clauses 15 to 17 formalise a realignment of State Highway 6 from the Hope Saddle to the Buller River at Kawatiri Junction through parts of Kahurangi National Park. These parts will be declared road. Clauses 18 to 20 clarify the status of land at Lookout Point, in Ōāmaru, Waitaki District. It will be confirmed that this land is endowment property, in terms of the Local Government Act 2002, and is vested in the Waitaki District Council for the purpose of aiding council funds. Clauses 21 to 23 address local community wishes by vesting landlocked reserve land at Māhinepua Bay in North Auckland in the trustees of an adjoining Māori reservation, while facilitating public access to land. Clauses 24 to 27 validate a 1903 transfer of the land where the Picton office of the Marlborough District Council is located, and remove an antiquated interest on the title to the land. Clauses 28 to 34 remove specific hospital-related purposes and other constraints on five titles to land held by the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board. That change will enable the board to make more effective use of the land in providing health and disability support services in the Nelson-Marlborough community.

Clauses 35 to 37 formalise a widening of State Highway 6 at the Punakaiki Village through part of the Paparoa National Park. This part will be declared road. Clauses 38 to 41 remove a restriction on the sale and lease under a 1901 statute of an area of reserve at Port Chalmers, so that the Dunedin City Council can manage the reserve, subject only to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977. That will enable the council to regularise an existing lease of part of the land to the local bowling club. Clauses 42 to 44 rectify the anomaly of having sanctuary areas and a conservation park within the Sugar Loaf Islands Marine Protected Area that are owned in part by local authorities, rather than by the Crown. The land concerned will be transferred to the Crown. Clauses 45 and 46, requested by the Ministry of Transport, amend section 9 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act 1973 to enable the Dunedin City Council to transfer the land of Taieri Airport to a community trust. This will provide the users of that site, which includes the Otago Aero Club, with some certainty that aviation activities will be able to continue there. An issue relating to the proceeds of any future sale of the land will need to be considered further during the select committee process.

Clauses 47 to 49—

Hon Steve Chadwick: This is important.

Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH: —remove local purpose reserve status over a residential subdivision—mostly now developed—on land that is currently vested in the Waitakere City Council for cemetery purposes. I have responded to the interjection of the honourable member. Clauses 50 to 52 remove all trusts on an area of forest reserve land originally held in trust for the Waipa District Council and four other local authorities but now held by the council alone. Clauses 53 to 55 formalise a realignment of a bridge on State Highway 6 through parts of Westland National Park. These parts will be declared road. Clauses 56 to 58 amend section 3 of the Winton Racecourse Reserve Management Ordinance of 1873. Members may ask why. It is so five trustees of the Winton Racecourse can be appointed for 3-year terms, rather than three trustees for life.

This bill will enable the resolution of the 17 items that I have just outlined at length. The Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill is diverse legislation that spans this country, has wide-ranging community interest at its heart, and deals with a number of iconic New Zealand locations. It should not surprise members to learn that I commend this bill to the House.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) : It is my great pleasure to rise in support of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill.

For a moment there I thought I might not get a chance to actually take my call this evening, but we have got there, thankfully, at last. I get the feeling of Groundhog Day. Here I am again, speaking on a technical bill, and it has taken a while for me to get my chance to speak, but I suppose such is the lot of those of us who hold the land information portfolios in our respective parties. It is not a glamorous spot, but it does deal with important details of Government and some of those fundamental rights that New Zealanders hold dear and take for granted. The work all gets done behind the scenes without much media attention.

Hon Dr Richard Worth: Sadly so.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes, indeed. It is not unlike internal affairs; it is not a glamorous portfolio but it is where a lot of the hard work gets done. Of course, we are dealing with another one of Labour’s bills today—just another one of Labour’s bills. I congratulate the previous Minister for Land Information, David Parker, who was involved in the meticulous work of putting this bill together. He has done an excellent job. This bill is another one that the Government has picked up without touching in any way whatsoever, so I congratulate the previous Minister on his superb work.

As the current Minister for Land Information, Dr Richard Worth, said, this bill is an omnibus bill; it pulls together a lot of different issues. Reserves and Other Lands Disposal bills are identified as non-controversial issues and have the consent of all parties in Parliament, so really there is no need to waste too much time on the bill. I will cover a couple of areas just very briefly.

The first area is the Auckland volcanic cones land. Under existing legislation, it is an offence to excavate or quarry on the side or slope of a volcanic cone or hill in a domain or public reserve in Auckland without the express authorisation of the Governor-General by Order in Council. Seeking authorisation from the Governor-General for that type of activity is no longer appropriate. Accordingly, clause 11 amends section 5(1) of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act 1915, so that consent must now be sought from the Minister of Conservation. That is entirely appropriate, considering that in March 2007 New Zealand submitted that volcanic field, with several specifically named features, as a World Heritage Site candidate, based on the area’s unique combination of natural and cultural features. That is very much in line with Labour’s philosophy of protecting our unique landforms for future generations of New Zealanders to enjoy.

The second area I will cover is the provisions relating to the Sugar Loaf Islands Marine Protected Area, off the Taranaki coast. That protected area is currently a mixture of Crown-owned and local authority - owned land and seabed. The bill seeks to rectify the anomalous position of having sanctuary areas and a conservation park owned in part by persons other than the Crown. The bill also designates further areas within the protected area as sanctuary areas, and removes the redundant wildlife refuge status from further areas within the protected area.

New Zealand is blessed with some of the world’s most outstanding and distinctive flora and fauna, and with conservation areas of great beauty and attractiveness for recreation and tourism. The recreational and heritage values of conservation areas can be readily diminished by alien weeds or pests, and by overuse and poor management. Through this bill we can help protect these values and ensure we are responsible kaitiaki for future generations.

There are, as the Minister detailed, a number of other provisions. There will be ample opportunity for any individuals or groups around the country affected by those provisions to make submissions to the select committee. I look forward to the progression of this bill and I commend it to the House.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) : I rise in support of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill, and in doing so I acknowledge the very articulate way that the Minister for Land Information went through the bill, its very structured purposes, and what it is designed to do.

I also take up the comment made by the member who just spoke and who has resumed his seat. He said that it has taken some time for him to get his call, and that he had not known whether he would actually get to speak on the bill today. I think it is worth tying that in with what another Opposition member said today. The member said, effectively, that it has really been left up to National to tidy up what Labour clearly left very untidy. This bill was introduced in the House on 15 July 2008 and it has languished on the Order Paper. It has now been picked up by an eager and enthusiastic National Government to ensure we get these matters sorted. This bill covers matters that are significant from the point of view of the communities involved. So there will be no more waiting; we have brought this bill forward for its first reading and, I am sure, it will be sent off to the select committee.

Interestingly, nine of my colleagues on this side of the House will be eagerly waiting to see the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill pass into law. I take the opportunity of naming those fine members. We have Shane Ardern, the member for Taranaki - King Country. We have the member for West Coast - Tasman, Chris Auchinvole. We have the member for Waitakere, Paula Bennett. We have Jacqui Dean from Waitaki, and Bill English from down in Clutha-Southland. From Auckland Central we have Nikki Kaye. I am from the Kaikōura electorate, Lockwood Smith is from Rodney, and Jonathan Young is from New Plymouth. That gives members some idea why we on this side of the House see this matter as of significant importance.

Going back to my own situation, and considering the eloquent speech given by the Minister Richard Worth, I see that the explanatory note of the bill touches on a matter that is close to my heart. It talks about the “Marlborough District Council (Picton Office) land”. We see that a long way back in time the Picton Institute Act 1864 bequeathed land for the specified intention. However, the council has used that land for another purpose, and, under this Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill, the council wishes to validate a previous dealing with the land and to remove the interest in relation to the Picton Institute. That goes right back to 1864. We can understand that the purpose of this bill is to tidy up such anomalies.

As we have heard, 2003 was the last time that a Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill was put forward. Some 5 years have gone by, and now we have this bill, which covers 17 pieces of legislation that need to be pulled into line. Either there have been oversights, or corrections are required.

A situation that is occurring in the electorate of Kaikōura is hugely significant, and everybody is waiting on it. It is with regard to the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board and the land that surrounds the Wairau Hospital. Clauses 28 to 34 relate to five parcels of land that are very important to the Wairau Hospital rebuild. In fact, the rebuild has already started. We are well into the project. This matter is very important to the rebuild, because unless we get those titles clear, we will not be able to use these particular parcels of land to complete the hospital rebuild. It is a very, very important matter. It is something that needs to be processed quickly because the community is aware that there is an intention in relation to that land. Some 16 hectares of land is involved. Not all that land is needed. However, the way in which the land came to be bequeathed to the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board needs to be clarified so that it can be used for the purpose of rebuilding that hospital. It needs to be processed.

The intention is that the land that is not required be used for the purposes of residential subdivision. That, in itself, raises another point in the sense that when we look at the explanatory note we see that it states that the bill is non-controversial. That is an interesting comment, because “non-controversial” today can take on the meaning that the general public are in acceptance of the process. It will be very interesting, when the bill goes through the House and submissions are called for—and I am a member of the Primary Production Committee—to see whether every member of the public in Marlborough agrees that the land should be disposed of and subdivided for the building of houses.

Effectively, about $5 million in general terms is required to make up the sum that is necessary to totally fund the Wairau Hospital rebuild. There is a view amongst a section of the community that the money should come out of the consolidated account of taxes, and that this land should be reserved. However, once something is bequeathed to a district health board, the board effectively becomes the owner, and on that basis the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill, as it is presented, is intended to tidy up the matter so that it can be moved on without there being any issue.

When we look at this bill we consider that those matters are very, very important to the community of Marlborough, in the Kaikōura electorate, but, likewise, throughout the country there are other matters of huge significance that need to be tidied up. One area that I found to be of particular interest—and I will try my very best to pronounce the name appropriately—is to do with a cemetery in the electorate of Waitakere. It is the Waikumete Cemetery. A lot of its 220-odd acres of land has now been subdivided and used for residential properties. That being the case, corrections need to be made concerning the process, and everything needs to be brought into order. There is no doubt that the community of Waitakere agrees with that. Things are being dealt with in an orderly way and by arrangement.

It is worth noting that that cemetery has a significant historical background. It includes a monument to the Holocaust. The monument was erected adjacent to the Hebrew prayer house in the Hebrew section of the cemetery. Also, a number of victims of the 1918 influenza outbreak are buried in unmarked graves along the eucalyptus way. Probably the most recent thing of significance in regard to that particular cemetery was the burial of a number of unidentified victims of the Mount Erebus plane crash.

As members will appreciate, the provisions relating to those things need tidying up, and this bill, the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill, does that appropriately. It is very, very important—hugely significant—to the communities that are involved. It gives me great pleasure to support the first reading of this bill.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) : I rise in support of this riveting legislation, the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. It is a technical, non-controversial bill, and I do not think it needs to occupy a lot of the time of the House. However, given the current global situation I wonder why this bill gets priority over other more important things such as the creation of jobs. We are well aware of the much-vaunted Job Summit last week. We are also aware that there was another summit early in January, when two Cabinet Ministers got together to talk about something else. It makes me wonder why this bill is so important, when we could be talking about such things as protecting New Zealanders; we could be debating the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill, which is a bill that really gets tough on gangs; or we could be debating superannuation portability, and so on and so forth. But we are here debating this bill, which, as I said, is riveting. We are talking about some small pieces of land that no one really knew much about until something happened and, suddenly, things had to be fixed with a bit of legislation.

The previous speaker, Colin King, talked about the Waikumete Cemetery. He said the cemetery was quite significant, and I guess that is not least because a few thousand dead people are buried there. They are, of course, our tūpuna, our family, and friends, and that is significant to us. But what concerns me about that parcel of land is that a bit of it was sold off in a shonky land deal. The Waitakere City Council, without lawful authority, disposed of the land. It subdivided the land and sold it off privately to people, a few houses were stuck on it, then the council said the land still legally had reserve status and remained subject to the Reserves Act. Clause 49 revokes that reserve status, but it concerns me that pieces of land can be sold off, have houses stuck on them, then we say “Sorry, there was a bit of a mistake there. But it is too late now, so we will just have to change the legislation.” That concerns me because I know that, from a Māori point of view, a number of bits of land have disappeared or had houses thrown up on them. That concerns me.

These are innocuous pieces of land, except for the fact that, again from the Māori world point of view, there is not much land—well, there is no land—in New Zealand that is really innocuous. My family sort of mocked my father when we were going around for drives as kids, and it seemed that every stone, every tree, and every hill and bump had a story to it. But none of this land is insignificant. There is also a saying in Māori that goes “Mā te wahine, mā te whenua, ngaro ai te tangata”, which basically means that by the pursuit of women and of land, men perish. I dare not get myself into trouble with my wife by trying to justify or explain the first part of that whakatauākī—I will not go there—but the second part of the whakatauākī is basically a warning that we need to be careful about the way we treat our land and the way land is dealt with, so that we do not create problems for ourselves down the line.

Basically, as I say, I do not think that this bill should take up a lot of our time in the House; more important things could be consuming our energies in here. But I stand to support this bill at its first reading.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : On the surface, the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill is an innocuous little number. The explanatory note of the bill itself starts off by stating that the bill “makes a number of non-controversial changes to the status of … land, land titles,” and so on. However, this bill is not innocuous, and it is not non-controversial. The Green Party will oppose it every step of the way unless there are changes to the section of the bill that deals with the Auckland Art Gallery development. We are appalled that the bid to reclassify part of Albert Park was included in a bill that would normally just fly through the House without anyone—the public or politicians—being particularly aware of its existence. Last July the Green Party wrote to the then Minister for Land Information, the Hon David Parker, and asked him to consider removing this portion of the bill because it was the subject of such major contention in Auckland. But, unfortunately, the Minister considered that the issue had to be dealt with at the select committee.

So here we are today with a bill that is supposed to be non-controversial but that, in fact, contains within it something absolutely abhorrent to many Aucklanders: the taking of a small portion of Albert Park for the art gallery extension. Public space in central Auckland is a rare commodity, and every square metre is precious as our population grows apace, particularly given the population density in the central city. For many of us who live, or have lived, in the central city, and/or who have gone to Auckland University or the Auckland University of Technology, Albert Park holds a special place in our hearts and memories. Albert Park has played quite a large part in my life in all sorts of ways, and I am sure that I am not the only MP in this House today who feels that way. I call on all members—whom I hear around me right now—who care about Albert Park to join me in working to stop this section of the bill going through.

The area this bill allows the art gallery to take is of special significance. It is one of only three small areas on the western edge of the park that provide access to the park from the city. To take away this space, or to narrow it down even further, will cut off the park even more from the city side. Open and green space in the middle of downtown Auckland is rare and precious. Neither I nor the Green Party has anything against the art gallery, but we do not believe that the gallery should be extended at the expense of the park.

Proponents of this open-space grab are acting as if it is the only option for the art gallery, but, of course, there are always other options. During the consent hearings on this matter, the gallery’s director himself, Chris Saines, actually agreed that even the new, modernised gallery would have a limited life and that there would be a need to move on to a second gallery in the future, regardless. I would far rather see a fine second gallery on the drawing board now than see the current project cut into scarce open space in Albert Park.

Judith Tizard, of course, was a champion of the art gallery project, and perhaps that was why Labour was so determined to keep these controversial clauses in a bill that was supposed to be non-controversial. She seemed determined to make sure the gallery could expand into this small area of Albert Park. However, I believe that the new Government does not have quite the same allegiance to that former Minister, and I call on National to look again at the issues involved and to support the call from local people in Auckland, from the Auckland Regional Council, and from the Green Party to save Albert Park from this encroachment.

Ordinary Aucklanders have got involved in this, partly through a petition signed by more than 1,100 people who object to the 1,117 square metres of the park being reclassified from a historic reserve to a local purpose art gallery reserve, which is inconsistent with the policies originally put in place to protect urban green space. I agree with those submitters in their call for the Auckland City Council to look for an additional site for an adjunct art gallery, and not to take any land from Albert Park for the art gallery development or remove or prune any trees for the purpose of that development.

Once this piece of land is gone and the affected trees are cut down or pruned, the land and trees will be gone forever. Section 18 of the Reserves Act 1977 establishes historic reserve classification as being “for the purpose of protecting and preserving in perpetuity such places, objects, and natural features, … as are of historic, archaeological, cultural, educational, and other special interest.” Albert Park encompasses many of these things: it is a public park, a historic reserve, an archaeological site of both settler and Māori heritage, a geological site, a green open space, part of an urban forest, and a visual amenity.

We believe that at the moment most people in Auckland are actually blissfully unaware of the Auckland City Council’s plan to build on Albert Park. I am also conscious that many MPs in this Parliament may be unaware that these clauses lurk inside this bill. The Green Party will be doing everything it can to amend the bill as it progresses through Parliament, and I certainly hope other parties will join us in ensuring the protection of this small but significant portion of central Auckland’s rare and precious open space.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : Tēnā koe. Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. Tēnā koe, Sue. Thank you very much for that kōrero about Albert Park. It brings back memories.

Shane Ardern: Do we want to know about it?

HONE HARAWIRA: Now, now, cut that out.

The Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill raises important issues about land for the Māori Party. When the colonials first got here, if they did not see any houses on the land, they called it—what do you call it—

David Garrett: Terra nullius.

HONE HARAWIRA: —terra nullius. There was nothing there, so they claimed it for themselves. After the colonials had been here a while, if there were not any Māori still on the land 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, they said “We’ll call this wasteland and take this stuff, too.” Later on in the 1800s, after the colonials had started grabbing all that land and selling it off to each other, they had a twinge of conscience and, realising how many dodgy land sales there had been, they passed an Act called the Validation of Invalid Land Sales Act. Then they could say “OK, we’ve ripped off all this land, but that’s OK—we’re going to make it OK.” So any time that a bill like this comes up about what is likely to happen to a piece of land—especially land that is called reserve land, empty land, or wasteland—and there is the opportunity to dispose of it in one shape or form, we will express our concern.

Apparently we are supporting this bill at its first reading because we want to get as many iwi as possible to signal what has happened with regard to a lot of their own reserved lands, so we can get the picture in on that. Clearly, a lot of these reserve lands are lands that were either gifted or transferred from Māori ownership into Pākehā ownership, and particularly into Crown ownership, for specific purposes. It did not end up staying that way. One of the Labour members talked about land in Waikumete, where the local council grabbed some land and gave it to one of its subsidiaries, which then flogged it off and some houses were built on it. I know of lands all around the country that were originally school land and, when the schools were closed, the land was transferred from one Government agency to another, then to another, then eventually sold off and not returned to its rightful owners.

The Māori Party is concerned about any suggestion that these small pieces of land here, there, and everywhere may be eligible for immediate sale by the Crown, its agencies, or local bodies, without any further consultation. The Waikumete land was one example of that having been done, and the Albert Park land was another. That park, apart from being a place of great value and great beauty to the people of Auckland, is also a place of historical settlement by the people of Ngāti Whātua. I know that at the resource consent hearings the iwi laid out a whole lot of their concerns about what might likely happen to that land, and this bill will not assist them in ensuring that their rights will be adhered to. We have concerns about that. We know of lands in Marlborough that were originally set aside for hospitals but that have been chopped up and passed on to this entity and that entity, then eventually flogged off.

For example, I know of some land in Kaitāia that is currently held by Far North Holdings Ltd on behalf of the local district council on behalf of the Crown, which used to own it through the then civil aviation division of the Ministry of Transport. Far North Holdings is now starting to impose different rules and regulations on the use of that land, and that has impacts on the local school.

I am speaking only about the situations I know of personally, but those sorts of blocks of land all over the country have huge value for Māori. As long as they do, then we will raise these concerns—certainly, at the select committee. We will be notifying as many of our people as possible, and we reserve the right to vote on this bill according to however we feel at the second and third readings, based on the information that comes before the select committee as a result of that process. Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. Kia ora tātou katoa.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) : I rise in support of the Reserve and Other Lands Disposal Bill. It is unfortunate that I was tied up with other parliamentary duties and I was not able to listen to what I bet was a very eloquent Minister’s speech. I am sure it would have been very precise. I am particularly interested in the area of this bill to do with the Waipā District Council. As others have said, I am the MP for Taranaki - King Country. The Waipā District Council is in Waikato, but it is in my electorate—go figure. It sits right in the heart of Waikato, in Te Awamutu, and covers a wide area right up to the Waikato Territorial Authority, which is also partly in my electorate. The history in regard to the parcel of land in the bill is quite a long one, and it is quite a substantial pocket of land.

Before I touch on that, I shall read the general policy statement in the explanatory note. It states: “This Bill makes a number of non-controversial changes to the status of parcels of land, land titles, and previous Reserves and Other Lands Disposal (ROLD) Acts.” I have just discovered that apparently that sort of Act—or bill, as it is at the moment—is described as a ROLD bill. I am sure the learned Minister gave the House an explanation as to the origins of that term and what it means, and I am waiting in anticipation to read the Hansard and find out that explanation. There we go: it is a ROLD bill.

My point is that when in Opposition and reading an opening comment like “non-controversial”, Opposition members’ antennae suddenly prick up and they become very nervous. I noticed the member Sue Bradford did so, and she highlighted it as an area of concern; likewise Hone Harawira, who has just resumed his seat. But under the guidance of the new National Government and this Minister, I think they have no reason to fear a recurrence of any of what has happened in the past with regard to those kinds of non-controversial things.

In Taranaki there are a large number of little bits of land—primarily, schools that were closed under the last Labour Government, in fact—that it is a pity could not be included in legislation like this. The Office of Treaty Settlements has looked at them, with advice from Te Puni Kōkiri, and it has said they are not required to be part of the land-banking process, yet those buildings and properties languish in disrepair, getting worse all the time. They are assets that are declining. I cannot for the life of me understand why that should be the case. Certainly, under the new Government, I know that that issue will be moved forward. Even if local iwi decide that the land should be part of the settlement process—and in this case they have not—under the National Government those settlements will be moved forward with much better integrity than has happened in the past. So Māori will have their day, in that regard.

The particular clause in this bill that is of relevance to the Waipā District Council is clause 50, relating to sections 51 and 52. Clause 50 states: “trust land means the land comprising 203.7996 hectares”—so not an insignificant amount of land—“contained in computer freehold register 78214 (being sections 23 and 26, Block”—well, I am not familiar with roman numerals, but it is VII, which is six—“Pirongia Survey District).” So there we go.

Hon Steve Chadwick: That’s seven.

SHANE ARDERN: Six.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Crusade for literacy and numeracy!

Hon Member: The member can debate it.

SHANE ARDERN: There we go. There is a bit of a debate about that. The background to this particular piece of land is, as stated in clause 51(1), “On 9 June 1942, Te Awamutu Borough Council, Otorohanga County Council, Hamilton Borough Council, Raglan County Council, and Waipa County Council entered into an agreement to purchase the Government interest in the trust land, with Te Awamutu Borough Council holding the land in trust for itself and the other councils for afforestation and water conservation …”. Now, if members listened to some of the debate in the House today they would think that conservation, water reticulation, and water protection were new ideas, and here we see that way back in 1942 the councils in central Waikato were involved in such a project. As clause 51(1) also states, the “agreement was validated by section 10 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act 1942 and vesting notices published in the Gazette …” in 1958. Clause 51(2) states: “On 15 July 1960, Raglan County Council withdrew from the agreement and a supplementary agreement was signed by the remaining parties to reflect this change. This agreement was also validated in legislation, by section 14 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act 1960.” So members can see that this particular proposal has had quite a long gestation period, going back before the last Labour Government. Most of these things have a long gestation, and this one, obviously, is as good as any.

Clause 51(3) states: “Changes to local government organisation in 1970 and 1989 and arrangements between the councils again altered the parties to the original agreement so that by 2003, the legal and beneficial interest in the trust land resided solely with the Waipa District Council.” Hence the need for the changes now. It goes on: “In addition, the purpose of the reserve had changed from afforestation, water conservation, and scenic purposes to a reserve for afforestation and water conservation purposes …”, gazetted in 1973, on page 360, I say for the learned Minister, Richard Worth, in case he wants to go and clarify that. The Waipā District Council at this point “wishes to have the trusts cancelled and the reference to them on the computer register in respect of the trust land removed.” I am sure that at the end of this process that is exactly what will happen; I am confident of that. The Minister is nodding, so it seems as though that will happen.

Clause 52 is entitled “Trust land free of trusts”, and it states that the trusts affecting the trust land are to be removed. So there you go, Mr Deputy Speaker; as the land is very near to your own electorate, I am sure you are very interested in all that. Certainly the next time there is a game of Trivial Pursuit in the Waikato you will be able to quote that back from Hansard, so it will be useful to you.

Clause 42 relates to the Sugar Loaf Islands Protected Marine Area in the New Plymouth district. That is also, for the learned Minister, in one of the territorial authorities in my electorate, the New Plymouth District Council—one of eight. This change is another great area of conservation. So, once again, those in the Green Party, and others who think they are the first horse out of the blocks in terms of conservation, need to go back and study some of this history. This matter will be tidied up by this bill, and at the end of that the people of New Plymouth will be very happy with that change.

I will leave the rest of that to my colleague Jonathan Young, who I think may be following along in this debate, and will complete my contribution today by pointing out to those who are concerned about the non-controversial changes in this bill that they will get their chance to raise those concerns in the select committee, because under a National Government everybody gets the chance to have their day on these issues. This is a new change for Parliament. I can understand that members are not used to it, because it did not happen under the last Government. This will be a new experience. There are some new members, and they will understand that when a National Government puts up a bill that states it is non-controversial, then, most likely, that is what it will be.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) : I rise to support the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. In the interests of brevity I think that all there is to say is that we should be congratulating the previous Minister for Land Information, David Parker.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) : I am absolutely delighted to be following my most excellent colleague Shane Ardern. He makes an outstanding contribution to the New Zealand Parliament and to his electorate of Taranaki - King Country. What an outstanding member of Parliament he is! I have very fond memories of his wonderful tractor, Matilda.

This is a momentous moment in New Zealand’s legislative history as we speak to the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. It is an important opportunity for New Zealand to recognise the continuing excellent work of the National Government in moving matters forward. That is what we are intent on doing, and have been doing for the last 100 days - plus. We are absolutely focused on getting the job done. I commend all my colleagues for the outstanding work that they have been doing. On my right is the Hon Richard Worth—another outstanding Minister.

The Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill makes a number of non-controversial changes to the status of parcels of land, land titles, and previous Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Acts. In short, we call these bills ROLD bills—R-O-L-D. I say for the benefit of those people who might happen to be listening in on this very special occasion that this legislation is important. If one looks at the breadth of the proposed changes, one sees that—apart from the changes to the Reserves Act—there are about 50 different amendments. Some of those relate to Albert Park, with the Auckland Art Gallery development; the Auckland volcanic cones land; and the Dunedin Octagon land. Do members remember that the Dunedin Octagon land was in the news recently? So many people have very strong connections and emotional ties to many of these places. I am sure they will be delighted that some of the constraints on their enjoyment of these places and on the community’s use of, and wishes regarding, them are now being set free. It is absolutely liberation. Communities will now have the freedom to enjoy these places and spaces as they wish.

There is the Kahurangi National Park land. I hope I am pronouncing that correctly. We have been berated for the way in which we pronounce words in the House. We endeavour to be very careful about it. There is the Lookout Point land. Regarding the pronunciation of words, local dialect must be considered and taken into account.

Shane Ardern: The vernacular.

SANDRA GOUDIE: Absolutely. In the Coromandel and all around New Zealand there are different pronunciations of words, and that is to do with local dialect.

But I will get back to the very important changes being made through this legislation. I must share with members that the Māhinepua Bay reserve land is mentioned—I am not sure I have said that correctly—as is the Marlborough District Council (Picton Office) land, and Nelson Marlborough District Health Board land.

Hon Steve Chadwick: What are the priorities of this Government—filibustering on this and avoiding the important legislation.

SANDRA GOUDIE: I take issue with the member who does not believe that this bill is important. It absolutely is important. It is really important that these changes are made for the many communities throughout New Zealand who want the opportunity to enjoy these places and spaces. I would hope that the member supported communities being able to maximise their enjoyment and use of all these properties.

There is the Paparoa National Park Land, the Port Chalmers Recreation Reserve—and what a delightful little place Port Chalmers is—the Sugar Loaf Islands Marine Protected Area, and Taieri Airport, which is absolutely important. The Waikumete Cemetery land is very important, and there is the Waipā District Council land, the Westland National Park land, and—the coup de grace—the Winton Racecourse.

I was interested to see the Winton Racecourse there, because my family often used to go to the Winton Racecourse and we have had many a wonderful, happy family time there. It is wonderful to see that the Department of Conservation is opening up the opportunity for the community to have an interest in the Winton Racecourse and to take part in the management of its affairs. Clause 56(2) states: “So as to enable wider community and independent input into the racecourse, the Department of Conservation wishes to enable the Minister of Conservation to appoint up to five trustees at any one time for the racecourse, and to limit each appointment to a three-year period.” Is that not wonderful? I think it is absolutely fantastic! I am so moved!

Hon Parekura Horomia: This is outlandish. This is foolish—disgraceful.

SANDRA GOUDIE: Well, it is wonderful. The Winton Racecourse Reserve Management Ordinance 1873 is being amended. We heard the year 1973 given, but the ordinance dates back to 1873. It had been left to languish until we took it by the horns, and we are making it happen tonight. Clause 57 substitutes a new section 3(1) in the ordinance that states: “The Minister of Conservation must appoint, by notice in the Gazette, not fewer than 3 but no more than 5 persons as trustees of the Winton Racecourse.” It goes on to talk about the term of office, and the transitional provision, which is, of course, incredibly important.

This Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill is diverse legislation and it spans the length and breadth of New Zealand. It has wide-ranging community interests at heart, and it deals with a number of iconic New Zealand locations. It enables the transfer of land to address community wishes, it removes restrictions that prevent community use of land, and it corrects historic oversights, errors, or omissions that are of a non-controversial nature. I recall the words of my most excellent colleague Shane Ardern, who said that the Office of Treaty Settlements has had an opportunity to comment, as have a number of other agencies, and it has found nothing overly controversial in the formulation of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill.

It would appear that we are satisfying the wishes of many people in communities throughout New Zealand about the use of these wide-ranging, iconic places and spaces. I note that the Braemar Hospital site, the Wairau Hospital site, and the French Pass District Nursing Property are other areas of land whose use is now able to be determined to the satisfaction of the interests of those communities.

I applaud National for its wonderful efforts in this regard—

Hekia Parata: The leadership.

SANDRA GOUDIE: —yes, absolutely, and for the leadership it has shown to the people of New Zealand.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) : Here we are at 6 minutes to 6 on a Thursday evening and the Government is filibustering on a bill that is non-controversial and that is going to go to a select committee—the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill.

The Government is obsessed with gangs and crime, and on the Order Paper there is a bill called the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill, yet that bill is not considered important enough to debate. I think New Zealand needs to notice that this Government is full of rhetoric about getting hard on gangs and getting hard on criminal offending, yet tonight it puts up—to filibuster and giggle about—a bill that is a tidy-up of all of the work the previous Government did. Government members are giggling away on clauses in the bill in order to waste the time and resources of the House when they ought to be getting on to the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill or the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill.

It is an obvious indication that this Government is simply not organised. Its members are in total disarray. They are not ready to speak tonight on the liquor legislation, so what are they doing? They are trifling with the House’s time. It is an appalling waste. When Labour was in Government we never did this; our speakers were always ready to go. They are not ready; they are a shambles.

Tonight we are wasting time on the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. I must say that the previous Minister for Land Information, David Parker, made sure he did the detailed work in the build-up to this bill. It is an appalling indictment that at this stage of Parliament—just after the first 100 days—Government members have forgotten the rhetoric of a bright future, of cleaning up the gangs, and of cleaning up the criminal offending, and that they have put this sort of detailed bill on to the Order Paper. It is an appalling way to end what has been a very successful week for the Opposition.

NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki) : I wish to make a very good contribution to the debate on the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill, which is a very important bill that is before the House this evening.

I take offence at the previous speaker, the junior Opposition whip, Steve Chadwick, standing up and saying that we should be focusing on crime and law and order issues. She has obviously forgotten about the 100-day programme that we have just implemented. With your consent, Mr Deputy Speaker, I think it is appropriate that the junior Opposition whip realises what this Government has achieved to do with law and order. I think it was a cheek that she stood up and berated this Government, when we have been working on a very good plan to make our communities safer. We have introduced legislation to remove the right of repeat criminals to parole; we have introduced legislation to crack down on gangs, which that former Minister said we are not doing enough of; we have toughened up the bail laws; and we have been extremely busy on youth crime—legislation to do with that is passing through the select committee. Legislation to do with DNA testing of criminals who come before the police is also moving through the select committee. There is a whole lot more, but I do not want to take all of this precious time to enlighten the junior Opposition whip as to how successful we have been during our 100-day programme.

I take some time to commend the honourable Minister Richard Worth for bringing this bill to the House. It will tidy up the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Acts. It is a very, very important bill that has been sitting around on the Order Paper since July of last year. This Government, which has implemented a 100-day programme, is getting on with the issues of the day. This is an important bill. When we think about it, we see that this bill will be very, very important for all those electorates that National holds. This bill affects the electorates of Shane Ardern, Chris Auchinvole, Paula Bennett, Jacqui Dean, Bill English, Nikki Kaye, Colin King, Lockwood Smith, and Jonathan Young. Labour has very few electorates in rural communities. This important bill will address concerns that have been raised by these electorate MPs in their own patches.

This very important bill will be referred to the Primary Production Committee, which is chaired by Shane Ardern. The committee has a bit of a work stream ahead of it, and it will also have to work hard on this bill. The benefits of this legislation are considerable; there will be real benefits right across the whole of the country, including the formalisation of the lease of the Port Chalmers Bowling Club and the securing of the future of the Otago Aero Club.

We heard from one of the new MPs, Clare Curran—one of the “listies”. She stood up and made a contribution for about 30 seconds.

• Debate interrupted.