JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) : I move, That the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill be now read a first time. I nominate that the Local Government and Environment Committee consider the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. The items contained in this Waitaki District Council local bill have been a long time coming to this House. Although, on the face of it, when we read the bill the matters contained look relatively dry and of a legal nature, actually the impact on the people whom it affects is quite strong. So to those people I have talked to, and to whom the matters in this bill relate, I am very pleased for their sake that tonight we have commenced the parliamentary part and the scrutiny of this local bill.

The bill contains three matters and I will run through them in turn. The first one relates to the Palmerston Showgrounds. This bill revokes the reservation of part lot 7, known as the Palmerston Showgrounds, under the Reserves Act 1977 and vests ownership of that land in the Waitaki District Council. The history of this item is that the council entered into an agreement for the sale and purchase of the Palmerston Showgrounds with the current lessees of the showgrounds in the year 2000. However, the problem was that the reserve status of the property gives effective ownership of the Palmerston Showgrounds to the Crown as a Crown-owned reserve. Ngāi Tahu and the Department of Conservation have consented to the sale of the Palmerston Showgrounds by the Crown to the council. The council, in turn, on the passage of this bill, considers it appropriate to regularise the occupation of the current lessees—that is, a family—of the Palmerston Showgrounds. It is going to do that by revoking its reserve status, freeing it of all express and implied reservations or restrictions—which, of course, it has under the Reserves Act 1977—and vesting ownership of the property in the council absolutely. The council may then consider selling the property to the current lessees. That is the first item contained in this bill.

The second item is a lot in Ōāmaru township itself, and that is lot 1 under the Reserves Act—DP 345820, to be specific—which will come under scrutiny by the select committee. Again, the bill vests ownership in the current registered proprietors. So the ownership will not be vested in the council; this item in the bill vests ownership with the current proprietors, who will then become the owners of that property. I know that this particular part of the bill is really important to that family, who I know are very concerned that it goes through this Parliament.

At the time that the council entered into an agreement for the sale and purchase of the freehold of this property, which was in 2004, the council was unaware of the reserve status of the property, which gave effective ownership of the property to the Crown. Ngāi Tahu, again, and the Department of Conservation have consented to the revocation of the reserve status and the ratification of the sale of the freehold property by the council to the original registered proprietors, who will then, on the passage of this bill, become the owners and they will be very glad to do so.

Those are the first two items contained in the bill, and the third item contained in this bill relates to Forrester Heights, which is also locally known as Lookout Point. It is a parcel of land that looks north-east, down on to the Ōāmaru Harbour, and currently is a relatively steep bank that is under grass and a bit of scrub. It is quite a nice parcel of land, as it happens.

There was a historical error made by the former borough essentially in relation to semantics. The land was originally purchased by the Government from Ngāi Tahu in 1848 as a part of the Kemp purchase. The land was included in the original subdivision of the town of Ōāmaru. Ōāmaru is a historic town, and this was part of the original subdivision. In 1885 the land was set aside as an endowment in aid of the funds for the benefit of the then Ōāmaru Borough Council, a predecessor to the Waitaki District Council, in accordance with section 38 of the Land Act 1877.

Now we come to the interesting part of the bill. An administrative oversight that occurred in 1937 mistakenly vested that parcel of land as a reserve. Reserve status and endowment status are two completely separate concepts, and the local borough of the day may not have been fully aware of this or appreciated its importance back in 1937. So the confusion that surrounds the status of this land is largely a result of language, or semantics. The land was reserved as an endowment in 1885, but it was not intended that the land was ever to be classified as reserve itself with the consequent encumbrances on that land, which have now become apparent with the passage of time. This bill addresses the clerical error made in 1937 by clarifying the status of the land as an endowment.

The Waitaki District Council has been working with Land Information New Zealand, together with Ngāi Tahu, the Department of Conservation, and the Commissioner of Crown Lands. I have been involved and so has parliamentary counsel on this matter. All those parties have consented to the content of the bill and to the objectives of the bill. It is worth noting that Ngāi Tahu have taken considerable advice on this issue. They have confirmed to the Waitaki District Council that their view is that the council has a right to freehold title to the land and that the land is, therefore, not subject to the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998.

So there you have it. It is, on the face of it, a perhaps pedestrian and technical bill to do with three matters, but I can tell members that as far as the locals are concerned, this bill is of great interest. I can assure the House that the Local Government and Environment Committee will give it its closest consideration. I commend the bill to the House.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) : Labour supports the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill to go to the Local Government and Environment Committee, as we do with almost all local bills that come to this House. I want to acknowledge the member for Waitaki. She is doing her job as a local MP, bringing this bill to the House on behalf of her constituents.

It is appropriate that local bills deal with matters like this, and we note that the Waitaki District Council has requested that the House help it by regularising the status of three pieces of land, which the member for Waitaki has been outlining for us. The council tells us that mistakes were made—“clerical errors”, in the words of the member for Waitaki. The council now wants Parliament to sort the problem out for it.

I do note that another bill is still before this House, the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill, which I think contains provisions that would do the job required for two of these blocks of land. But, for some reason, since this Government was elected in 2008 that bill has languished at the bottom of the Order Paper and progress has not been made. The poor member for Waitaki has been forced to bring this local bill to the House. Nevertheless, Labour supports this bill going to select committee, but I want to sound a note of concern about one of the three blocks of land that this bill deals with. In respect of the reserve land that is being vested in private interests and is the subject of significant controversy and argument in Ōāmaru, I think that deserves proper scrutiny and debate at select committee, and I will devote some of my remaining time to dealing with that issue.

The Palmerston Showgrounds, I think, was a pretty straightforward case. The reserve status was discovered when the council found that the block of land did not appear on its electronic database. The council wants to sell it to the current lessees, and, in fact, it thought it had sold it and then found that it had not; it had only purported to sell it, but the land is still legally a reserve. The second block of land dealt with by this bill is at the northern end of Ōāmaru, and the council tells us that a technical error occurred when the status of the land was changed from recreational to commercial. As Jacqui Dean told us, both Ngāi Tahu and the Department of Conservation have expressed support for the changes in this bill. The land at the northern end of Ōāmaru was in fact sold, or purported to be sold, by the council in 2004, and has since been onsold to another proprietor. This second block, as well, would have its reserve status revoked by this bill. Its title would be vested in the current proprietors.

It is altogether more interesting for us to talk about Lookout Point, also known as Forrester Heights. It is controversial. It has been dogged by disputes all the way along, and continues to be the subject of much argument locally. The council believes that a mistake was made in 1937. It discovered that apparent mistake in 2006. It says that the mistake was made after the land was originally set aside in 1885 by the Government as endowment land, and, as the member explained, the status in fact conferred on that land was reserve land. The council wants that reserve status to be revoked so that the land can be sold and subdivided. That idea has been contested vigorously by individuals and groups, including Waitaki Ratepayers and Concerned Citizens and the Friendly Bay Society. They oppose changing the designation, and they maintain the land was always intended to be a reserve and should not be subdivided. The chairman of Waitaki Ratepayers and Concerned Citizens, Mr Warren Crawford, told the Otago Daily Times earlier this year that the group continued to oppose the subdivision. It believed the land should be retained as a reserve and planted in native trees.

This is a classic case of land that some people, at least in the local community, believe is publicly owned land and that it should be preserved for the public good and maintained as a community asset. On the other hand, we have the Waitaki District Council and presumably others in the community who believe it was always intended to be developed for private use and private gain. The land is going to be subdivided. It is a 5.8 hectare subdivision overlooking Ōāmaru Harbour, the town, and the coast. A profit of $3 million from the subdivision has been earmarked by the council to pay for a $10 million refurbishment of the Ōāmaru Opera House. As I said, it has been dogged by dispute. It is a matter of considerable controversy in the town, and we on this side of the House believe it is important that—

Hon Trevor Mallard: The Ōāmaru Opera House? I remember that story.

PHIL TWYFORD: Maybe the select committee should go to the Ōāmaru Opera House.

The reason why we think this deserves scrutiny is that when National comes to this House with a bill that proposes to alienate public land and transfer it into private ownership, the alarm bells ring on this side of the House. The National Government has form on this issue. This is the Government that has made an art form of transferring public resources into private hands. We see it in many, many bills that come to this House. We have seen it in the way that it has made asset sales its primary—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The time has come for the dinner adjournment. I shall resume the Chair at 7.30 p.m.

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

PHIL TWYFORD: We are discussing this evening the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. As I was saying before the break, Labour is supporting this bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee, but we do so with the intention that elements of this seemingly uncontroversial bill should get proper scrutiny at the select committee.

I was focusing my comments before the dinner break on one of the three blocks of land, which is known as Forrester Heights or Lookout Point. Like the other two blocks of land dealt with by this bill, the Waitaki District Council believes that administrative errors were conferred on the block’s reserve status when, in fact, it should have been treated as an endowment. Now the council wants to dispose of the land, and Lookout Point has been earmarked for a subdivision, a 5.8 hectare subdivision, 27 sections on Cape Wanbrow, which is above Ōāmaru Harbour.

The reason that we think this deserves scrutiny at select committee is that it involves the disposal of publicly owned assets for private gain. Taken at face value, that may be perfectly fine, but, as I was saying before, the party on that side of the House has form in this area. It believes that selling assets is our national economic development strategy, and it is quite happy to dispose of assets in the public good for private gain. There is another bill that we recently sent off to select committee, a local bill, the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill, which involves transferring a council-owned water supply scheme into private hands. There are all sorts of allegations surrounding that bill, of improper pressure brought to bear on the local council, and a good deal of local controversy.

So I think there is reason to tread carefully. It is all too easy for lawyers, councillors, politicians, and real estate agents to use their informal relationships and networks to extract private gain from public resources. I think it is a fundamental principle of our democracy that our public resources should be managed in the public good and in the public interest, and that is something that we should fiercely protect. So that is the principle at stake. We support this local bill brought to the House by Jacqui Dean, we support it going to the Local Government and Environment Committee, and we look forward to properly scrutinising the provisions of this bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a 5-minute call, starting with Nikki Kaye.

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) : I am very pleased to speak on the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. I would like to start by acknowledging the local member of Parliament for Waitaki, Jacqui Dean. What we are seeing within this piece of legislation is the initiative of a local MP—and obviously this bill is to do with the local authority for Waitaki—who has done her work, she has done her research, and she is doing what she thinks is best for the community.

What we are going to be talking about this evening is three pieces of land. Contrary to what the Opposition has said—it has talked about the transfer of assets as such a bad thing—we all know that across local authorities across New Zealand every day there are situations where assets are transferred between local authorities and public citizens. This is not a scary thing that happens. This is something that happens every day. But in this situation, and this is why we are currently here before Parliament, we are dealing with three parcels of land. I want to just take us through those three parcels of land first, because I think there are some unique situations around each of them.

But the first thing I want to do is also acknowledge again that you have got a hard-working, diligent MP who has done her research, worked with the local authority, worked with Ngāi Tahu and iwi, and come up with a proposition so that this can go to a select committee, people can have their voice heard, but also put on the parliamentary record what has happened with regard to these three pieces of land. Contrary to the Opposition members who say this is a very scary thing that is before Parliament, members on this side believe actually this is a well-researched piece of legislation by a good local MP.

So the first parcel of land that we are dealing with—

Scott Simpson: Who was that local MP?

NIKKI KAYE: The local member is Jacqui Dean, just so members and anyone listening can hear what a great local member of Parliament she is. The first piece of land that we are talking about is the Palmerston Showgrounds piece of land. The provisions will allow Waitaki District Council to sell the land to current lessees. The second is a piece of land called lot 1. This will allow the Waitaki District Council to regularise the sale of the section to the current registered proprietors, and allow title to their property to be unencumbered by any notation relating to the Reserves Act. That does not sound scary to me. Does that sound scary to other members?

Scott Simpson: Not at all. Not at all.

NIKKI KAYE: Not at all. There are situations right across New Zealand that happen on a regular basis with local authorities, where situations arise where they transfer parcels of land. For the record, let me just say that on this side of the House we understand that actually sometimes to grow your assets and to improve your asset base you might actually do transfers. It is a radical notion—it is a radical notion—but New Zealanders do it every single day in their households and with their businesses, and that is all that the Parliament is dealing with in this piece of straightforward legislation.

I just want to deal with the third piece of land, because this piece of land—and Mr Twyford has mentioned it, but also the local MP for Waitaki, Jacqui Dean, has mentioned it—is where there has been a fair amount of discussion in the public domain. This piece of land has been referred to as Forrester Heights, but is also known as Lookout Point. It is a lovely piece of land. I have never been there, but I have as a student when I was travelling to Dunedin travelled through the beautiful town of Ōāmaru. I was delighted when I was doing my research this evening, because I was not aware that you can catch a live show at an opera house, and that you can spoil yourself with some lovely made soap and with a cheese platter at the local cheese factory, and I just want to acknowledge that this evening.

But with regard to this Lookout Point piece of land, what happened here was that it was originally purchased by the Government from Ngāi Tahu in 1948 as part of the Kemp purchase. There was an administrative oversight in 1937, which mistakenly vested the land in the Waitaki District Council as a reserve. What actually happened here was that the land was vested as a reserve, but what was meant to happen was that it was an endowment. It basically got reserve status, and it was supposed to be reserved as an endowment. So we see this as a clerical issue.

However, we acknowledge that it is really important for people to have their voices heard. We do understand that this bill has come to Parliament because the Waitaki District Council believes that it is an important piece of legislation to have in Parliament, and because Ngāi Tahu have recognised that they have confirmed this view. So I am very pleased to support this bill going to a select committee, and I commend it to the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) : Far from this legislation, the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill, being progressed quickly, I think the member for Waitaki has been in that role for 7 years—she beat me, congratulations—and this issue has been outstanding since then. Indeed, I was the Minister for Land Information after Jacqui knocked me off my perch, and this issue was raised with me in respect of Forrester Heights. I was embarrassed that it took 2 years for me to get it into legislation because it was incumbent upon me as the Minister for Land Information to check that the council was right that this was endowment land that could be used for whatever financial purpose the council wanted, rather than reserve land. So I, as is the proper thing, got the Department of Conservation to check—twice, in fact—as to whether this was properly endowment land rather than reserve land. If it was given for reserve purposes then it cannot just be changed at the whim of the council and put to some other purpose. After 2 years I did get it in the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill, which has been languishing on the Order Paper under this Government for 4 years.

Far from this not being solvable in respect of Forrester Heights—and I know that Jacqui Dean on the other side has the decency to smile, because we both sat on the Government Administration Committee that looked at the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill, which is still on the Order Paper but has never been advanced in the last 4 years by the Government. Far from the member for Waitaki having exerted vast influence on this, it is belatedly coming to us.

The issue here is whether it is properly endowment land, rather than reserve land. If it is endowment land, then it is fine for the council to sell it; it is the council’s choice. Whether individual members of this House might agree or otherwise, the council is devolved with responsibility for that decision at a local government level. It wants to sell it to help defray the costs of its opera house. It is a very nice piece of reserve land that sits above the historic precinct and looks out over the Ōāmaru harbour.

If it is properly reserve land rather than endowment land, then it ought not to be sold. I understand that that is still a matter of controversy, notwithstanding the Department of Conservation’s investigations at the time. I am told that someone has now uncovered a letter from Parliament—this Parliament—many, many years ago, when there was an early proposal by the council to sell this land. Parliament wrote to the council and said: “I’m sorry, you can’t do that. It is reserve land, intended to be reserve land rather than endowment land.” I have not seen the letter. I am told it exists. If it exists, it should come out at the Local Government and Environment Committee. If it comes out at the select committee, this legislation probably ought not to proceed. If, on the other hand, that evidence is not available at the select committee and we have the other evidence—that is, the Department of Conservation inquiry into the history of this, which suggested that it was endowment land as originally intended rather than reserve land way back when—then the councillor and the member are correct. This ought to go to the select committee. That is the question that is at large, and I look forward to the consideration of it.

The other issue, in respect of the Palmerston Showgrounds, is, by comparison, less significant. I do not know that there is any controversy surrounding that.

But in respect of this reserve land, the second thing I would say needs to be checked at the select committee is I know there are local concerns that the reclassification of land will extend beyond the Forrester Heights block that is intended for subdivision and will extend to some of the other land that goes beyond that towards the seawards side, over towards the old gun emplacements and things. I do not think it is in dispute that that is reserved reserve land, rather than endowment land. There is some suspicion amongst some of the people around Ōāmaru that through this process that land will be reclassified too. I do not think that is a valid concern, but I think that those concerns should be assuaged at the select committee by people having the ability to participate in an open process. The big issue is whether this is reserve or endowment land, and there is still uncertainty around that point.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green) : I am pleased to take a short call on this Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. I congratulate the member for Waitaki, Jacqui Dean, on representing her community and bringing the bill to this House. In my short time here I have noticed that small local bills that might, on their surface, seem uncontroversial can actually reveal a range of issues beneath them when they get to select committee and when the public has an opportunity to make submissions. I suspect that this bill may be one of those.

The Green Party will be supporting this bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee. As others in the House have explained, it does seek to rectify several drafting errors. As the Hon David Parker has noted—and I thank him for explaining a bit more of the history of the third piece of land at Forrester Heights—the first two changes in the bill are uncontroversial. They seek to fix errors by the Waitaki District Council in purporting to sell land that the council did not, in fact, have the power to sell. Obviously, those errors have implications for the current occupiers of the land, so should be resolved. Similarly, with the land under the former caretaker’s cottage at the Palmerston Showgrounds, that also has been sold, purportedly, and it was not clear then that it was the Crown rather than the council that had title to the land. So that error should also be corrected.

The land at Forrester Heights and Lookout Point, as its name suggests, has got spectacular views of the coast and of the harbour. It is said by the Waitaki District Council that it was an administrative error way back in 1937 when the letter “d” was omitted from the word “reserved”, so the land become reserve rather than endowment land and open to the Ōāmaru Borough Council then to do whatever with it. This change in this bill, which concerns a lot of local people, has much wider implications because, of course, by vesting the land with the council as endowment land, the council can sell it. Even on the council website there is a very attractive brochure that promotes the Forrester Heights subdivision as having spectacular sea views, being north-facing, sun-drenched, safe, secluded, and sheltered. To me, that suggests that the land has quite important scenic and amenity values, which the community may well want to hold in public ownership. So I look forward to the submissions from the community when this bill comes before the select committee about whether the reserve status has, in fact, been incorrectly given, and whether the land should stay as reserve and should stay in public ownership.

It was also instructive to look at the council’s draft long-term plan. The council pointed out that it was having to increase its rates and increase its revenue generation—and the Forrester Heights subdivision proposal is part of the council’s property plan process—because of increased insurance costs and also because of reduced Government funding for local roads. As other members have mentioned, this money from Forrester Heights may be going to the opera house, but the fact that the council is having to sell potential assets because of reduced Government funding highlights what this Government is doing with local government. Not only is it reducing the funding for local roads but also it is seeking to interfere more in local government and direct local government through the extensive powers that the bill we considered yesterday is giving to the Minister of Local Government. Potentially, he will push councils and direct them to sell more assets such as this important land at Forrester Heights.

Because of the potential can of worms that there may be in relation to the status of the land, I look forward to the bill being considered by the select committee and to hearing public submissions on it. Thank you.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) : First of all, the Palmerston Showgrounds are in fact reserve under the Reserves Act 1977 and, hence, Crown land. The Waitaki District Council has applied for the reserve status to be revoked so that it can sell the land. It has Department of Conservation and Ngāi Tahu consent, but there is insufficient information, as far as I am concerned, in the explanatory note of the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. It appears that the land was sold to the current lessees in May 2000, even though it was a reserve. We are not told why the showgrounds are being sold in that way, but the revocation as a reserve was publicly notified and there were, in fact, no objections. We presume that the land is no longer needed as showgrounds, but you would not know that from the information that we are given.

I think that perhaps Parliament is being regarded, to some extent, as a rubber stamp in this matter. It is unclear what is really happening. We are first of all told that there was a purported sale in May 2000, then we are told that the council resolved to sell to the lessees in April 2004, subject to the surrender of the lease. Yet we are also told that the land is to be vested in the Crown subject to the lease “so that the council may consider selling the property to the current lessees.” So I am not sure what has actually happened here, and the explanatory note is as clear as mud. It is very confusing indeed. However, it does appear that the bill will regularise the council’s errors in this matter, and we must assume that this is appropriate. I hope that the committee will have a good look at the reasons behind it.

Secondly, the bill also deals with lot 1 on DP345820. Again, the council sold a reserve—purportedly sold it—and it was in fact transferred, and transferred again and again. The bill will vest the land legally in the current proprietors, and the Department of Conservation and Ngāi Tahu have consented. Again, there is no real explanation why the reserve status is not needed and why the land was originally purportedly sold. There has been no public notification, and we are left again to presume that the reasons for the revocation and sale are valid. Again, I hope that the Local Government and Environment Committee will investigate this, because there is nothing in the bill as presented, or in the explanations I have heard, that would justify it.

Thirdly, the Lookout Point land, which was originally endowment land for the Ōāmaru borough—now the Waitaki District Council—was, apparently, erroneously made a reserve, and a title was issued with a reserve memorial on it. Hence there is said to be confusion about whether the land is a reserve or not. But, once again, there is little or no explanation about the claim of confusion as to whether this land was genuinely to be a reserve or was to be just endowment land for the council. As a matter of fact, however, the Order in Council of 1937 did make the land a reserve. So it is indisputably, in fact, actually a reserve, and therefore the council should, in my view, have to go through the usual process to revoke a reserve, involving full public consultation and the full formal process for that to happen. There is no information, again, why this reserve status should be revoked in this case. There has in fact been absolutely no public notification, no Department of Conservation consent, and no Ngāi Tahu consent.

Jacqui Dean: Read the bill.

DENIS O’ROURKE: So we are not told why the Waitaki District Council wants to sell. I have just heard opposite that there is information there. But I have read everything I can find on it, and I say that there is not any information about that, and that the full process should have been gone through. So, overall, New Zealand First objects to the introduction of this bill without adequate information, without clear reasons for the revocation of reserve status, without evidence of public notification, and without the usual due process. But New Zealand First will support the bill going to the select committee so that a more comprehensive explanation of all the circumstances behind these three pieces of land can be given, and so that we can have a good and proper look at whether the bill should in fact be passed.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : I want to compliment David Parker, Eugenie Sage, and also Denis O’Rourke on those thoughtful contributions on this bill, the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. I also want to compliment Jacqui Dean, the sponsor of this bill. Jacqui Dean, in my view, is one of the most activist local members of Parliament that we have in Parliament. She has done some magnificent work in terms of the twilight reserve in the Mackenzie Country, which was announced earlier this week. There is the Mackenzie Sustainable Futures Trust, which she has been the flag bearer for, as well as initiatives such as this bill. I also note her bill in respect of Easter trading and the exemptions that she is trying to get for her community. She is a very effective member of Parliament for Waitaki.

I want to make three points about this bill. The first of those is that it is interesting that when one of the really hot bills of the week is about being able to sell assets and buy others—in the form of the Mixed Ownership Model Bill, which I think we will be debating tomorrow—there is a pretty strong consensus within the Parliament that it is actually really sensible for public entities, whether they be councils or otherwise, to sell some land and to use that asset to do other things. In this case the member has promoted the view that these 10 hectares of land could quite suitably be sold, and that the money should be used to fund things like the opera house in Ōāmaru—a magnificent building and actually a project that Jacqui Dean worked on as the deputy mayor of that community of Ōāmaru.

I just have to ask the question of members opposite: where is all the rhetoric about no asset sales? I thought asset sales were the end of the world! I keep seeing these brochures everywhere: “Labour Stands, New Zealand First Stands, and the Greens Stand For Absolutely No Asset Sales”. And yet we have a bill here that is to facilitate the sale of land to allow communities to be able to rejig their capital balance sheets and use these assets. It might have been appropriate in the 19th century for them to be owned by a public entity, but actually subdividing and selling the land, and putting that asset into other things is perfectly logical. I just challenge the members opposite: if the logic applies to councils being able to sell these three blocks of land and use that money for other assets, is that not exactly what this Government is doing tomorrow with the Mixed Ownership Model Bill? I am just hoping that Eugenie Sage, Denis O’Rourke, and David Parker will reflect on the sensible speeches that they have given this evening, and will make sure that they do the same tomorrow.

The second point I want to make is that I actually think in the debate about local government—and I was fascinated when we debated the bill yesterday—that members are saying that we should give local communities more say over their future, and that local democracy is what it is all about. Well, if we have local democracy, should not councils be able to rejig the mix of land and reserves that they have in their communities so that they work best for the area? I think it is horribly bureaucratic. The reality is that many of our reserves and blocks of lands that were set aside were set aside for the needs of communities 100 years ago—you know, those smatterings of little reserves that get negligible use. It would actually be really sensible for us to give councils more flexibility and more local democracy to be able to make decisions on blocks of land like this. Really, we should be reflecting on why it is that it requires a bill of Parliament for the local Waitaki council to change the status of 10 hectares of land. Should we not as parliamentarians really be reflecting on whether our laws actually do give local democracy and do let councils have a say about their areas of land and how they might be more usefully used for communities as they manage their assets?

I am a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I am going to look forward to hearing the community on this bill. I really do encourage this House around those issues of local democracy, sensible utilisation of communities’ assets, and rationalisation. It is really good, sensible policy that is being promoted here by Jacqui Dean. I just hope that the consensus that the Parliament can find on this bill can be found on other bills, because it is good, sensible policy.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) : I think the member who has just taken his seat, Nick Smith, has demonstrated clearly that he has not been following the debate so far. Many of the points he accused us of not covering were covered very eloquently by my colleague Phil Twyford earlier in the debate. I shall come further to the matter of asset sales, which he raised, as I continue.

This issue of Forrester Heights is an issue of concern for many locals, and that is why we in the Labour Party are keeping a close eye on it. The question of whether it is properly reserve land or endowment land is a live question, as my colleague the Hon David Parker alluded to earlier. The Waitaki ratepayers and concerned citizens, and various other folks in the community there, want to make sure that the right decisions are made, and who can blame them? We have asked for local democracy, and this is local democracy in action. There are many locals in Ōāmaru who believe that in the 19th century the land was made a reserve for all time—that sheep grazed on it, that it was there as a reserve, and that it was not endowment land. We will hear this debated at the select committee—and Labour will support the bill’s referral to the select committee to hear this bill debated—because it is a live issue. It is contentious in the local community.

There is an ongoing dispute about whether or not an error occurred—it is not even completely clear that an error occurred—and about whether or not this land should, therefore, fall under the Reserves Act. Those people who are upset say that the council has refused to provide evidence of the error the Crown allegedly made. If this is true, it is of concern indeed. This should be a transparent process, and I have little doubt that it will be a transparent process once it gets to the select committee, but these are contentious issues.

It is also alleged that the council granted itself a consent without a full public consenting process. Again, locals are niggly about this. They feel that, again, they deserve full transparency in these processes, and they question whether consenting done in this way is lawful. So there are some in the community who suggest it may be advisable that an independent commissioner be appointed to examine the council’s granting of consents to itself. These kinds of suggestions show the strength of feeling in the community, and that is why we should have this full debate at the select committee.

We understand that Ngāi Tahu supports this changing of the status of the land to clarify it as endowment land, if indeed that is the right thing to do, but it is also true that Waitaha have concerns about this land. Those concerns are yet to be aired, and they will, I am sure, also be aired in the select committee.

We know the history of the bill, or some members have alluded to it. The changes in this piece of legislation were previously contained in the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill, which currently languishes at No. 29 on the Order Paper. It is not progressing. But the select committee process should progress this matter and bring it to a fruitful conclusion.

I would encourage the select committee to consider going down to Ōāmaru and seeing the fine sights down there—

Jacqui Dean: Oh, wonderful idea.

Dr DAVID CLARK: —visiting the local opera house, and I am sure the local member will make the committee members feel at home. It is a fabulous part of the country, and when Labour took the Waitaki River plan legislation through the select committee process, it made absolutely sure that the select committee went down to Ōāmaru—

Phil Twyford: There was a very good MP then.

Dr DAVID CLARK: —there was a good MP locally then, the Hon David Parker—because Labour believes in having good local consultation. I would encourage the select committee to follow that model, to get down and speak to the people in Ōāmaru, and to make sure that all those local views are taken into consideration.

On the matter of asset sales, as we close, Dr Nick Smith mentioned asset sales. Well, there is feeling about these assets. There is concern that there is a potential here to privatise things that should not be privatised. We think that sunlight will be a great disinfectant here. These things should be examined. They should be looked at. Members of the local community—those I have spoken to—are indeed concerned about asset sales, and I would encourage them to get down to Dunedin this coming Saturday to the march that will leave the dental school at 11 a.m. to express their discontent with the Government, which wants to sell the assets. But in Ōāmaru, if the select committee comes down, they will have their say on this issue, as well.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) : I am very pleased to follow my colleagues who have spoken so ably on this bill, the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill, sponsored by Jacqui Dean. We have heard already the just fantastic results that as a local MP she has been able to achieve, unlike the member who was in the area before her.

I think it is really important just to reflect on some of the comments that my colleagues have made, because I think it is worthy that they are brought back to the House’s attention, particularly the one about the fact that this is a local bill. This side of the House is really proud to make progress on local bills, so we will be efficiently and effectively dealing with this local bill, unlike some of the others that unfortunately we had to deal with in the 49th Parliament. Also, just to reiterate, this is a local bill, and this is a Government that is delivering on the wishes of the local people of Waitaki, which is very similar to the discussions we had in this House yesterday around the local government reform debate.

I was listening very carefully in the earlier debates, and I am sure I heard those members opposite saying they were supporting this bill, so I shall also be very interested when they speak tomorrow and in further debates on legislation allowing the ability for assets to be moved, replaced, and altered for things that can be done far more effectively. Given the confidence of my colleagues before me, I shall leave it at that. I am proud to support this bill.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) : I want to thank members across the House for their contributions in the first reading of the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill, and I want to thank them also for their support of this bill to go to the select committee. There were a couple of comments that were made that I will pick up, perhaps in a gentle way, because I think we are going to have very good scrutiny of this bill. If there is, indeed, a letter around that will be used as evidence to prove one way or another whether the land known as Lookout Point is reserve or endowment land, then let us see it, so that the select committee can consider its contents and get some advice on it. The second matter was raised by the New Zealand First member who said that there has been no public notification. Well, in the course of advertising for a local bill, of course there is public notification, so the process has just started with this bill. Of course, the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee will be opening this bill for public consideration and submission, and I look forward to—and, indeed, I am encouraging—many people to make submissions on this bill.

As members around the House have acknowledged, there are three matters that are raised in this bill. The first two are relatively uncontroversial. They regularise the status of two parcels of land, and once this bill has passed, that will be to the benefit of two families, one in Palmerston at the show grounds and the other one in the north of Ōāmaru, who are waiting for this bill to be passed through the Parliament so that that land, which they in good faith thought was theirs, either by ownership or by lease, can now be theirs legally. Those were the first two parts of the bill. The third portion of the bill, which is to do with Forrester Heights, is, as we have seen, a little more contentious, and I look forward—if, indeed, there is any new evidence to be brought to the select committee—to seeing that evidence so that we can give it consideration. My belief is that this provision is about correcting a historical mistake.

Furthermore, I just want to say about that third matter that what the local authority may or may not choose to do with that land is outside the scope of this bill, and is also contingent on the bill, in fact, passing. I would also like to add that whatever the council decides to do with that land is a matter for it, because that is what local government is all about. Our part through Parliament is to scrutinise and either confirm, amend, or reject the proposition that has been put up to us via this bill.

I want to acknowledge Ngāi Tahu, I want to acknowledge the Waitaki District Council for bringing this bill to the House, to council solicitor Ben Coleman, who has worked on this bill, and also I want to acknowledge the assistance of the Office of the Clerk, which has been really helpful, both to me and to the local community, in bringing this bill to the House.

Again, and I am going to say it again because I think it is very important, and I do hope some members of the local committee are watching or listening: please make your submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I have already given my commitment to some of you that we will make it as easy as possible for you to have your point of view heard during the course of this bill. I can assure the House, on behalf of the chair Nicky Wagner, because it is her committee, that the committee will give this bill very close and open scrutiny. So I am very pleased to commend the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill to the House.

• Bill read a first time.

• Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātau e te Whare. I move, That the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill be now read a first time. I intend to move at the appropriate time that the bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee.

I hiahia ko te iwi rā ki runga o Kōpūkairoa, papā te whatitiri ki runga o Maunga Mana, papaki tū ana ngā tai ki Karikari, te tere o te Waitao, whakapapa pounamu te tāhuna o Rangataua. I whakanukuhia, i whakanekehia ki tai wiwī, ki tai wawā, ki te tai papaki onepū, ki te whai ao, ki te ao mārama, ti-hē mauri ora.

[In accordance with the wishes of that tribe upon Kōpūkairoa, the thunder claps over Mount Mana, the tides crash against Karikari, the current of the Waitao River, and the calming beach of Rangataua. It then disperses here, there, and upon the repelling beach to the world of light and of understanding, behold the breath of life.]

Can I start by saying that I am honoured to sponsor this very important bill into this House. What is really pleasing to me is how the council and mana whenua have come together to bring about a positive outcome. I want to say congratulations to the Tauranga City Council and Ngā Pōtiki on showing the way. The purpose of this bill is to repeal the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act 1975. This bill, for members in the House, takes us back to another time, some 40 years ago, in 1972, when the Mount Maunganui Borough Council proposed a sewage disposal scheme—[Interruption]

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate there is allowed to be some banter here, but actually it would be good if the banter was about the bill, as opposed to something else. Could I ask that I be given a little bit of leeway in being able to present this kōrero, as there are a lot of people listening back in Tauranga Moana who think it is quite important. I would like to think that the House thinks so as well.

Hon John Banks: Some of us are sick and tired of the inane interjections, and we ask you to give this learned member an opportunity. I am sitting beside him and I am interested in what he has got to say. Give him a fair go. If they want to go away and do something else in their spare time, they should. But this is Parliament; it is not a kindergarten.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The House has been in reasonably light-hearted mode this evening. There have been interjections, and at times they have been over the top. I would just ask members to show some courtesy.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would just like you to affirm your ruling in respect of conduct in this House. When that member was on the telephone, we thought he had fallen asleep or fallen off his perch, but he was on the telephone—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member was not creating any disturbance whatsoever.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have already ruled on it. Please sit down.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A separate point of order?

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Yes, Mr Speaker. With respect, you have had points of order from Mr Flavell and Mr Banks on conduct. I have raised a legitimate point, which is a rule, and I invite you to rule on it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have ruled on it. I will just say this. When members raise points of order they are not opportunities to attack other members of the House, and in that regard one of the people speaking to the points of order did use that as an opportunity to degrade other members of the House, and that is not appropriate.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: Can I just start again. This bill takes us back to another time, some 40 years ago, to 1972, when the Mount Maunganui Borough Council proposed a sewage disposal scheme that required substantial reclamation within the Rangataua Estuary in Tauranga. That council is now defunct, but the legacy of its actions remains. The legislation we are repealing today established the construction of oxidation ponds from which effluent would temporarily be discharged into Te Tāhuna o Rangataua, or what other people refer to as Rangataua Estuary.

I want to just acknowledge the work done to ensure that Te Tāhuna o Rangataua, as of 10 May 2012, is now the official geographic name of this area, characterised by the tidal mudflats and sandy area of the inner south-east reaches of the Tauranga Harbour. The Ngā Pōtiki hapū of Tamapahore Marae submitted the proposal to alter the name Rangataua Bay to Te Tāhuna o Rangataua. Rangataua Bay was gazetted in 1974 as an area of Tauranga Harbour. It makes for great timeliness that at the same time we are adopting the new official name, we are also repealing the legislation of this time.

Going back a little bit, the 1972 proposal I referred to earlier would have eventually been supported by the construction of an ocean outfall at Papamoa. For Ngā Pōtiki and indeed Tauranga Māori, the discharge of human waste into the pristine Te Tāhuna o Rangataua, which had served as a pātaka kai for centuries, was and remains an issue that has caused deep resentment. The proposal was particularly abhorrent for Ngā Pōtiki, as the area designated for reclamation was part of the ancestral landscape.

For the purposes of the record, let me just go back a little bit to the history of this land. It traces its history back to the award of the Papamoa Block to Ngā Pōtiki by Crown commissioners in the 1880s. Ngā Pōtiki and its close relation to Te Tāhuna o Rangataua is celebrated through its rich oral traditions, including pepeha, whakataukī, and waiata, and is demonstrated by the location of marae in close proximity to the shoreline.

The deep relationship, where the health of one is believed to be linked with the health of the other, and vice versa, was referred to in many briefs of evidence submitted by Ngā Pōtiki kaumātua to the Waitangi Tribunal held at Maungatawa Marae in 2000. Throughout the early 1970s the late Parāone Rēweti, MP for Eastern Māori, and Wiremu Ohia, chairman of the Tauranga Moana Māori Executive, on behalf of tangata whenua, were particularly vocal in their opposition to the Mount Maunganui Borough Council’s proposal. Even the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Ministry of Transport also opposed the proposal to reclaim foreshore and seabed. All recognised the importance of protecting an asset of significant environmental and cultural value, and maintaining water quality.

An environmental impact report, entitled Crown Acquisition and Desecration of Ngā Potiki Land 1999, commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, acknowledged that “a flourishing ecosystem on the tidal flats would be lost” through the reclamation, but claimed that the effects of the oxidation ponds would be minor. This is a really damning statement, which adds to the history of this bill, and I would have to say that as the local member for Waiariki I am pleased that we are at long last making efforts to rectify this, to make right something that was wrong. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in a report around this same time concluded that the reclamation could not be justified because of the impact on the area and the possibility of other sites being used. In or about 1977 the Mount Maunganui Borough Council completed the construction of the easement to enable the discharge of effluent into the ocean.

But it gets worse. This easement was constructed through an ancient Ngā Pōtiki urupā, or cemetery, located in the sand dunes at Papamoa. Ngā Pōtiki again opposed this work, on the grounds that human waste in close proximity to a wāhi tapu was grossly disrespectful and abhorrent. That effluent was to be discharged into the pristine ocean environment, at Te Akau ki Papamoa, or Papamoa Coast, which has for centuries served as a pātaka kai and was equally offensive. In 1989 the Mount Maunganui Borough Council and the Tauranga District Council were amalgamated and their sewerage systems became jointly managed. Some 10 years later the Tauranga City Council embarked on a consultation process with Ngā Pōtiki that eventually led to the establishment of extensive wetlands, in addition to other filters, aimed at removing solids from waste water prior to discharge into the ocean.

However, the concerns on the part of Ngā Pōtiki around the discharge of effluent through its urupā have not been completely allayed, even four decades later. For Ngā Pōtiki the reclamation of the foreshore and seabed, the construction and continued presence of oxidation ponds, and the discharge of effluent represents a failure by the Crown to protect Ngā Pōtiki and their ancestral landscape, as provided in the Treaty of Waitangi. These issues form part of the settlement currently being negotiated with the Crown, as well as an application before the High Court seeking a customary rights order under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.

Although the repeal of the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act 1975 brings a certain amount of closure, it also represents a vindication of the many, many Ngā Pōtiki kaumātua in the 1970s and 1980s who, as a group, protested against what they viewed as an invasion of their ancestral landscape and cultural values. In spite of their advocacy and widespread community opposition, legislation was enacted anyway.

In the year 2000 the Tauranga City Council established the Tangata Whenua Tauranga City Council Standing Committee to facilitate improved engagement between Māori and the council. In 2004 the Tauranga City Council established the Tauranga Moana Tangata Whenua Committee to encourage numerous hapū of Tauranga Moana to engage with the council. In 2006 Tauranga City Council established the Wastewater Management Review Committee, comprising elected councillors and appointed tangata whenua representatives. Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Te Rangi Iwi Trust and Ngāti Ranginui are each represented by one person, and Ngā Pōtiki represented by two people, reflecting the significance of issues relating to the area.

Ngā Pōtiki say they enjoy a good relationship with Tauranga City Council, based on mutual respect and underpinned by their relationship as Treaty partners. The joint approach by Ngā Pōtiki and the Tauranga City Council to Parliament represents the latest initiative, reflecting the commitment on the part of both parties to work together collaboratively and constructively. It will have the effect of helping to heal the past and strengthen an already positive relationship. It is therefore most appropriate that Ngā Pōtiki and the Tauranga City Council jointly sponsor the application to Parliament to repeal the legislation. The Māori Party is delighted to stand alongside them, and to commend this bill to the House.

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) : I am very pleased to be speaking on the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill. Can I start by acknowledging the member who has just spoken, Te Ururoa Flavell, the member for Waiariki. I also want to acknowledge the Hon Simon Bridges, who I know did work hard, and I know he has had a number of discussions with the previous member on this piece of legislation. The Hon Simon Bridges is a very hard-working member for Tauranga. He has a small majority of about 17,000, and I know there are other members in this House who care deeply about Tauranga.

I want to touch on a few things that have been previously said by the member who spoke before me. The first thing is that this bill is being, obviously, sponsored by the Tauranga City Council, but also with support from Ngā Pōtiki. I think we need to acknowledge in this House the speech we have just heard from Te Ururoa Flavell about some of the cultural issues that have obviously been involved in some of the background to this bill coming to the House. We also need to acknowledge something that the member has just said. He said—and this is a bit of a positive point—that we can see a good relationship between the council and Ngā Pōtiki. That is a really positive thing for the future.

When I think of the Mount—I have visited there, and I have done public meetings with the Hon Simon Bridges—I think of a place of the future. This is a city that is growing. We know that it has gone from something like 48,000 to 103,000 in a very short period of time. What is really important for the future is that we are able to look to it and really ensure that there is good community infrastructure there. That is why it is very relevant that with this bill we are dealing with waste water and discharge, because that is actually fundamental to a city being able to develop in the future. I acknowledge Te Ururoa Flavell’s speech and the cultural issues that obviously still surround this particular area of land. But the reason we are here is that the council and Ngā Pōtiki have come together, along with local MPs, to say that we need to repeal the original Act.

If we look at some of the history in terms of the legislative history, what we see is that the original Act, the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act, authorised the Mount Maunganui Borough Council to reclaim tidal lands constituting part of the bed of the harbour of Tauranga, and to develop such reclaimed land for sewerage and other municipal purposes. The land was then transferred, as part of the seabed of Tauranga Harbour, to Mount Maunganui Borough Council, which was authorised under the Act to transfer a total of about 73.5 hectares. The council reclaimed only about 23.5 hectares.

We then saw that the authority to reclaim the balance of the area was revoked by the legislation of 1991, so that the principal Act had no legal effect. But what happened here was that during an application process to upgrade Tauranga City Council’s waste-water treatment plant, iwi and other stakeholders expressed grievances regarding the scope of the land that could be reclaimed under the Act and the adverse effects, as has already been mentioned by the previous speaker, in terms of the waste-water treatment.

So where we are at is that both the Tauranga City Council and stakeholders concur that we need to repeal the principal act, returning the legal status of the land to what it was before 1975. We on this side of the House believe that this bill should go to the Local Government and Environment Committee. We believe that it is appropriate, in the context of these grievances and concerns, to repeal the original legislation. That is why we here on this side of the House are supporting this bill. But we also believe, as we have seen with other local bills that have gone through this House, that it is important to have local members of Parliament—like the Hon Simon Bridges and like Te Ururoa Flavell—who really get into the community and talk to people who are involved and affected by situations like this, and ensure that people have their voices heard.

Some people will see this as a small piece of legislation, but for other people who have been affected in the past, it is significant. I acknowledge the work of local members to bring it to this point. I acknowledge the future of the Mount, the fact that it is a growing city, and that some of these issues are integral in terms of community infrastructure and development in the future. I support this bill to the House.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) : I rise to speak on behalf of Labour. We will support this bill, the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill, at its first reading. Having listened to the previous speaker from the National Party, Nikki Kaye, I say that if National is so passionate about ensuring that iwi concerns are taken account of, especially on resource management issues, it would have supported my member’s bill, the Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill, which sought to have regard to, and provide for, iwi management plans and planning documents of regional councils, but it did not. However, it is important to recognise the Māori Party member Te Ururoa Flavell and his comments regarding the history of Ngā Pōtiki and their relationship to the site on which waste-water treatment plants are currently sited, because they have a particular interest. I will pick up in some part where that member left off, to say that when the Tauranga City Council got together and established the Māori consultative committee in 2004, it had a document that went out for consultation in which a number of iwi in Tauranga Moana contributed and had a say about their particular views as tangata whenua with regard to continued developments in their area.

There are a few points that I would like to mention. Firstly, I would like to mention Ngā Pōtiki’s particular relationship with the area on which waste-water plants are. I am noting from the document on te maunga wastewater treatment facilities. I really wanted to raise in the House an important meeting that Ngā Pōtiki had, a hui-ā-iwi or hui-ā-hapū, on 3 October 2004, when RerēamomoŌhiaand Tai Taikato presented some key recommendations to the council from the hui-ā-hapū. Firstly, “That Nga Pōtiki do not support the application by Tauranga City Council to continue to discharge wastewater from the Sewage Treatment and Wastewater System located at Te Maunga into Te Moana A Toi Te Huatahi.” Secondly, “That Tauranga City Council ‘commit’ to decommissioning the entire system at Te Maunga within a specified time frame.” and, thirdly, “That there be no further ‘hook ons’ including those proposed in the list contained in the consent application and those omitted from the list.”

I make that point in reference to this debate only to ensure further on down the track, when negotiations are occurring, that it is clear in this House that Ngā Pōtiki have expressed their interests in their area through successive consultations over time, as cited by the member for the area, and successively in terms of engaging in resource consent processes. That is important to mention, because there is great hope and aspiration that, in working together for the future, the interests of tangata whenua in that area are not overlooked. They, in particular, made a point about the repeal of the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowerment Act, because they did not want any further reclamation to take place, and, as the previous speaker, Nikki Kaye, mentioned, the full reclamation of land intended here in Tauranga was not utilised. Ngā Pōtiki supported the repeal of this Act because they did not want to extend reclamations on the basis of their ongoing interests.

It is also important to recognise that tangata whenua in the Tauranga Moana area have had very strong views about the ways in which waste water should be managed and treated. The expression that there should be land-based treatment prior to discharge has been a view that is long held. It is clearly cited in this particular document, which I did a little bit of research and study on. I think it is important, again, to state, and continue to state, that these are not new issues for the iwi. They continue to be issues that pervade the ongoing best-management practice for the care and responsibility not only of land-based activities, but of whatever happens within the marine environment. Again, I want to reiterate that Labour will support this bill, in its first reading, to the select committee. We look forward to hearing ongoing process, on the other hand, with Ngā Pōtiki and their broader interests as tangata whenua in the area. We certainly look forward to a continuing positive relationship with tangata whenua in Tauranga Moana on all issues within the Tauranga Moana area. Kia ora.

MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) : I rise to speak to the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill. As we have been saying on this side of the House, there is a lot of accord around this. We heard Te Ururoa Flavell talking about it; one wonders how much there is to debate around this. If Labour has agreed to get it through to the select committee, that is certainly where we would like it to be.

But having heard Te Ururoa talk about the history of this and the clear need for redress, and putting the things that were wrong to the right, to rectify the situation, it does seem as if the repeal of this Act is long overdue. In respect of the protection of ancestral areas, it seems like the discharge of effluent, as Nikki Kaye pointed out a few moments ago, is a growing area that will have growing sewage issues as a result of that. Really, one wonders how you could continue on without referring it—

Hon Simon Bridges: Thanks for that.

MAGGIE BARRY: Yes, nothing personal, Mr Bridges—everybody has to do it. But, of course, it does appear that this is something that has been caught up in the local authorities for some time. If council and iwi and politicians on all sides of the House are agreeing for it to go forward, there does not seem to be a heck of a lot more to be said about it.

I think taking Te Ururoa Flavell’s line of healing the past and strengthening the relationships, and people joining together to rectify past wrongs, is something that the National Party has stood by. Repealing legislation that is unnecessary is also something that has been a hallmark of this Government. So without further ado, I recommend that this bill goes to the select committee and that we refer that to the House. Thank you.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green) : Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you. I am pleased to take a short call on the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill. Although, as the previous speaker, Maggie Barry, noted, it may not be controversial, I think it is instructive to look at some of the history of the bill, and I am very grateful to Te Ururoa Flavell for explaining some of it.

The bill repeals a 1975 Act that gave authority for the transfer of 73 hectares of seabed to what is now the Tauranga City Council for its sewerage scheme and other municipal purposes. The Green Party supports the bill, because it will prevent further ecological damage from infilling of the harbour, and because it recognises the grievance of Ngā Pōtiki in relation to its Treaty claim.

Even a very brief reading of the Waitangi Tribunal’s report on Tauranga Moana’s 1886 to 2006 claim highlights the importance of this ancestral landscape and the natural environment of Tauranga Harbour to tangata whenua. Chapter 7 of the tribunal’s report begins with the words: “By 1840, Tauranga Moana had become one of the most continuously occupied and densely settled landscapes in New Zealand. It is not hard to understand why. It is a place of great natural beauty, and diverse and productive ecosystems: open seas, offshore islands, coastal sandy beaches and rocky shores, the large harbour lagoon and its many estuaries, mudflats, tidal pools, and wetlands, together with many waterways draining densely forested hills.”

Tangata whenua told the tribunal that over many decades in which the town of Tauranga had burgeoned into a city they had been shut out and excluded from decisions that influenced the city’s development. They had been unable to act as kaitiaki to guard and protect their taonga—the harbours, the waterways, the forests, the fisheries, and the sacred mountains of their ancestors. When you read the tribunal’s report, it talks about widespread typhoid amongst Māori populations because of the very poor way in which sewage was discharged; the fact that even in the 1950s effluent at Mount Maunganui was ending up in an open drain, there were septic tanks that were seeping into the harbour, and the borough council’s “solution” was to develop this reclamation and sewerage scheme. It was strongly opposed by iwi at the time, because of the impact of the discharge on the estuary and the fact that it would diminish the very flourishing ecosystem there. The estuary discharge did not proceed, but there was further work, which the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment opposed, as well. There was opposition by iwi to the reclassification of the waters in the harbour to allow the sewerage scheme to proceed. So there has been a whole history of Ngā Pōtiki and others putting forward their concerns about the impact of the sewerage scheme.

This was at a time when we had the Town and Country Planning Act 1953. Unlike the Resource Management Act, it had no specific provisions for local authorities to have regard for either Māori land or Māori interests. That was characteristic of that time and it was very much the poorer for it.

So this Act that we are repealing is a creature of its time. We have moved on since then. The repeal of the Act will go some way towards assuaging the very well-founded grievances of Ngā Pōtiki. It does reflect its time. We hope that with the Resource Management Act and the much greater concern, the statutory recognition in that Act for kaitiakitanga, there will be much greater attention paid in future to making sure that sewage discharges and sewerage treatment schemes do not impact on the values of mana whenua and the ethic of kaitiakitanga for their taonga. Thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Andrew Little—sorry, Andrew Williams. I apologise. That is the second time I have done that.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) : I think that is the second time you have made that mistake. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill. I would firstly like to acknowledge also the work that our colleague Te Ururoa Flavell from the Māori Party has put into this bill before the House today. I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the people of Ngā Pōtiki, whom this legislation most concerns. I know that for some, and for them, it is a matter that is very close to their hearts. Also, I would like to acknowledge the Tauranga City Council in this whole business. It was the architect of this bill.

My background, as many of you will know, is from local government. As the former Mayor of North Shore, which has the longest urban coastline in New Zealand—some 150 kilometres of coastline—I am only too aware of how important our foreshore and seabed and coastline are to every citizen in this country. As the House has been told, this bill is intended to repeal the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act 1975. The Act’s purpose back then, in the 1970s, was to authorise that reclamation of 73.5 hectares of the Bay of Plenty harbour. That authority, of course, has since been revoked, rendering the Act null and void. That has been the case for more than 20 years. So now, in 2012, the 50th New Zealand Parliament finally confronts this matter.

But this is not simply about uncluttering the statute book by removing unnecessary legislation; it is also about acknowledging past wrongs. This is a symbolic gesture to Ngā Pōtiki. It is a fundamental step towards forging a new future as one people and one nation. We cannot go forward into the 21st century without first recognising the historical injustices committed against our fellow New Zealanders. Only then can we move on. In that respect I want to commend the Tauranga City Council and Ngā Pōtiki for this enlightened approach that they have taken. New Zealand First is proud to stand with them.

However—and there is a however—New Zealand First urges all parties in this House to stop and take note. That includes the National members on the other side of the House. No one community or group—including Mr Tau Henare there, who should be aware of this—can ever claim to be the sole owner of any precious coastal or marine areas. The division seen in this country during the passing of the Foreshore and Seabed Act in 2004 could very well emerge again should this Government continue to pursue the wishes of the Māori Party and further perpetuate the Treaty gravy train in what we call the “bro-rocracy”, of which it and its supporters are so fond.

I would like to give you a personal example. When I was the Belgian trade commissioner and vice-consul, the Belgian Ambassador to Australia, who was accredited to New Zealand, visited from Canberra and he visited Northland for a few days. He was most upset, when he was confronted by a group of young Māori on a beach where he was walking with his wife, to be told: “Get the hell off our beach.” He reported this back to me when he came back to Auckland. He said that he did not realise that this was occurring in New Zealand, and he did not feel that that was the way New Zealand should go forward. He did not see a future for New Zealand if that was the way New Zealand was going to be separated and divided.

We certainly do not want to see that sort of happening occurring in our country. Any legislation concerning the foreshore and seabed, particularly ownership, should be treated delicately. This legislation applies in respect of all areas of our coastline, and as this refers to the Mount Maunganui former borough council, we also take note that the maunga, the Mount itself, is under some questioning as to what its status will be in the future. Again I would say that that treasure, that national icon, must have open access to all New Zealanders; there must be free and open access for all New Zealanders to enjoy that national icon.

New Zealand First supports this bill and commends this bill to the House, but we do make note of some of those reservations that we have about the continued open access to our foreshore and seabed.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) : Kia ora anō tātou. Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I arise to support earlier speakers. We will support this piece of legislation, the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill, but there is an element that crept into Mr Flavell’s contribution that suggested that effluent drew a distinction between brown, white, yellow, and black people. The reality is that a number of these changes over the years have been egregious, but a number are absolutely necessary. If we are to have civic works and if we are to retain essential services that all of us in the community are going to be the beneficiaries of and pay for, then that must not be lost sight of.

I actually know quite a bit about the history of the hapū Ngā Pōtiki-a-Tamapāhore, the ancestors who moved into that area several generations before my ancestors went through the area. Ngā Pōtiki have been right to remain vigilant. They have been right to challenge both the Crown and sub-national levels of government. But at the end of the day it is to the benefit of all groups in our community if essential works are to take place.

I am the first to say that the takutai moana seabed and foreshore piece of legislation was certainly the nadir of that particular time, and our contribution as Labour politicians in response to a furore that had developed, but we have moved on beyond that. This legislation—fortunately brought forward by Te Ururoa Flavell—does endeavour to correct some of the effects of that legislation. But there are two elements to be borne in mind here: there is the importance of ancestral land, and there is the importance of balancing the scales of justice. But if you want to live in a modern society, there is the importance of enabling those who were put in power to proceed with the creation and the maintenance of essential services. I do not think it is very sensible that we allow those two issues to be mixed up, because there is always going to be a trade-off.

It is good to see that the Tauranga City Council is working effectively with this group of tangata whenua, a hapū of Ngāi Te Rangi. It is good to see that they have moved on from the very bleak time when the library was ransacked and—if I recall accurately—was almost burnt down as a consequence. I actually attended that particular protest in the 1980s by Ngāi Tamarāwaho—if my memory serves me correctly. A lad from St Stephen’s School—Hugh Sayers, I think, was his name—was playing some sort of role there. It is good to see that Tauranga Moana District Māori Council has moved on from those times.

Although we want to actually support this bill, this is a part of Aotearoa where there is a great deal of growth and where there is a great deal of attractiveness of wanting to live there, so essential services are required. And this is a timely reminder. Let it not fall disproportionately on groups such as Ngā Pōtiki. But I also say to those of us in the Māori community that we have got to take a balanced approach as well, because we are the beneficiaries when civic infrastructure is expanded.

Not only has Tauranga Moana got a rich history in terms of Māori but also it is now turning into such a successful port that it eclipses the Port of Auckland. I will not say too much more about that for fear of being seen to have lobbied for the expansion of Marsden Point, the diminution of the Ports of Auckland, and the restoration of the Auckland port back to the citizens of Auckland, but that is another matter. I seem to remember a famous Labour parliamentarian, Mr Mallard, wanting to improve the quality at that time, but—[Bell rung] I presume that is a signal for 1 more minute and it is not what I fear it could be.

We will support this bill. It is an important area of Aotearoa, but two things are to be borne in mind: sure, be sensitive to those concerns of ancestral land claims, etc., but bear in mind that no city, no country, and no nation can advance itself in the absence of an evolving, improving civil infrastructure. Kia ora tātou katoa.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) : It is a real pleasure to speak on this great little bill, the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill, which has come before this House, and to do so proudly as the happy member for Tauranga and as a proud Mount Maunganui resident. I have very proudly been a resident of that suburb for over a decade now. Of course I think it is right to reflect that when this law that we are repealing first became a law in 1975—the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act—Mount Maunganui was physically, in many ways, some way away from the city, or the township as it probably was then, of Tauranga, because people had to take a long journey to get to the Mount for a holiday.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: We solved that with a couple of bridges.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: That is right. Of course, there was a lot of progress between 1975 and the 2000s—we have bridges now. We will not dwell on how that came to be. We will not get into the details of that, because we all know there are many sides to that story. But, be that as it may, it is good that there are two bridges in Tauranga connecting the area there and making the city connected and much smaller. I have to say that there still is, though—and I have found this when first standing for Parliament—a sense of the “Mounties” and of those who are city-side, and that is still present to some extent.

But this is a good bill. It is not, I think, going to be the most exciting or controversial bill that comes before this Parliament, but it is a good one none the less. Can I pay tribute to Te Ururoa Flavell, who has brought it before this House. I did have responsibility for it at the very beginning, but he is the member who has done the lion’s share of work and who has spent a lot of time with the council and on getting the details into place. Can I acknowledge the Tauranga City Council for its work in this piece of legislation, and Ngā Pōtiki, as other members have said, for their work. I know it is a happy evening for them.

The story of this bill, and the substance of this bill, are pretty straightforward. The old law is now defunct. It is pointless. The purpose for it, and the land reclamation, no longer are necessary. As I say, I know there will be many in Ngā Pōtiki, and indeed the workers at the council and Te Ururoa Flavell, who will be very happy indeed that we can pass this repeal bill and get on with life again in the great suburb of Mount Maunganui in the great city of Tauranga.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) : Just briefly, I want to acknowledge two of the contributions in this debate. The first was by Te Ururoa Flavell, who gave us a fulsome account of the history behind the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill and the experience of Ngā Pōtiki and how they feel about the waste-water treatment plant and the effect of that particular infrastructure on their ancestral lands and waters.

I also want to acknowledge the contribution of my colleague Shane Jones, which was typically erudite and thoughtful. If it had not been for his contribution in this debate tonight, we could not have really called it a debate, actually. I think that Shane made the point that it is important to recognise the sensitivities and the aspirations of the tangata whenua in a situation like this, but equally we have to balance that against the need for essential infrastructure and economic development, and the costs and the burdens of that infrastructure should not be allowed to fall unduly on one particular section of the community.

I was really struck, in listening to the contributions this evening, by how this story is almost a universal story. It could have taken place almost anywhere in New Zealand. Any town or city has a similar story. In fact, in Tāmaki-makau-rau there are countless examples where the land and the harbours have been used in a way that has really had an impact on the sensitivities of the mana whenua. The journey towards properly managing the effects of that kind of economic development is one that has seen both Māori and Pākehā making huge strides in the last couple of decades in dealing with these issues. I would submit that we are in a much better place as a country now than we were a generation ago in reconciling these differences. Labour supports this bill to select committee.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora anō tātou katoa. Firstly, can I thank all members for their contributions and for adding to the story. I very much appreciated that we have all of that discussion on the record.

I have to say I feel a little bit embarrassed about the accolades being given to me for leading this bill, the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill, into the House, because all I did was sponsor it. The big accolades really should go to the Tauranga City Council and Ngā Pōtiki, who came together on this project to present it into my hands, fortunately, this time, but it could have been Mr Bridges or it could have been Mr Ryall. So I do want to acknowledge very much the council and Ngā Pōtiki, whom I met just 1 week ago in Tauranga, where we sat in the room and went over the final details to make sure that everything was signed off before we came to the House. I can say with pretty much hand on heart, and also with a list of people, that this was fairly much put out there amongst the Tauranga community, and wider, to ensure that everybody was in the know about this bill and that we generally had a good sign-off on it.

I just want to take a minute to pick up on a couple of points. I think everybody acknowledges that what we are talking about here is righting a wrong, and under those circumstances I am pleased that we have got cross-party support for this bill and I am hoping that we can move it pretty rapidly through the whole process.

I was a little bit disappointed about some of Mr Williams’ comments. To say that some people go on to land and are told the hell to get off implies that Māori, for one reason or another, are the only ones who tell people to get off land. That is, I think, a little bit out of place. In fact, in Rotorua there are a number of people who tell me, when I go fishing, to get off their land as well, so let us just put that in perspective. For Mr Williams to say that no one should claim the foreshore and seabed, he should check with some of those private owners of the foreshore and seabed throughout the country and ask them how they feel about the same issue. I think that those points need to be challenged so as not to denigrate this particular bill in the way it has been.

I wanted to pick up on Mr Jones’ point in respect of his saying: “Well, some land over history has been taken for the betterment of the country.” Yeah, sure, but you add it all up, and in this particular scenario it is right smack through the middle of a urupā. As Mr Twyford has talked about, there are other examples of this. I think in this case, people have got something to jump up and down about. In fact, if you add it all to things like battles like Te Ranga, add it to confiscation in places like Taranaki and Tauranga Moana, and add it to raupatu and the loss of land over time, which has been well documented in Waitangi Tribunal hearings, I think you would understand why people should be pretty angry and upset about these sorts of things. But in a positive way, and staying with the positive, at least at this point in time the two parties have come together in a way forward.

I just wanted to say one last point, and it is that in about a couple of weeks’ time, there will be a commemoration, or at least the signing of a move forward, on the part of a number of the Tauranga iwi. Te Ranga was an important part of Tauranga history—not that I know it all—but there will be a time when people will go up there to commemorate, in a sense, the battle of Te Ranga at Gate Pa, which is documented in history. Again, all of that is about healing, healing our time as a nation, just as much as this bill, albeit small, is a positive move if you put it in the context of the many other things that are happening. It bodes well for the future and I hope that may continue.

In the last part I will say, on the back of all this discussion about being together, just to think about the Rena disaster last year, when again iwi were involved in decision making at the highest level with the authorities through Maritime New Zealand, and so on, and the outcome was absolutely wonderful to see. It was Tauranga people coming together to address that.

So with those few words I thank the House for all your contributions and look forward to ongoing support as the bill goes through on its journey. Ka nui te mihi ki a koutou, ki a tātau i tēnei pō, tae rā nō ki a koutou e whakarongo mai nā i te wā kāinga, Tauranga Moana, Tauranga tangata, ka mutu, ki te Kaunihera o Tauranga, ka nui te mihi. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau.

[I greatly appreciate you and us collectively here tonight as well as those of you listening in from back home in Tauranga, the people, and, of course, the Tauranga City Council. I am overwhelmed by the huge acknowledgment. Greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to us collectively.]

• Bill read a first time.

• Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) : I move, That the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill be now read a first time. It is my intention to nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the bill over the next number of months. I need to declare straight away that this piece of remnant bush and the very large house that was once the family home of the first settlers on the Plains, the Deans family, is in my electorate. Between 1989 and 1996 I was a member of the trust board that administers that particular property, and between 1992 and 1996 I was chairman of that trust.

This is a piece of legislation that dates back to 1914 when the Deans family decided that the last remaining remnant of native bush on the Canterbury Plains at Riccarton should be in public ownership, and so they gifted it to the people of Christchurch at that time. There was a trust arrangement set up to administer all of the necessary caretaking of that bush, which involved quite a large number of local authorities that existed in and around Christchurch at that time. Later, in 1947, the family decided that they would exit the large house on the property, which had been built progressively from 1856 through to the early 1900s, and they sold the balance of the property to the Christchurch City Council, the Heathcote County Council, the Waimairi County Council, and the Paparua County Council, as well as the Borough of Riccarton, which at that stage had become the trustees, if you like, of the property.

I think it is fair to say that over the years the value of the bush was not as well recognised as it possibly could be. At one point it was the policy of the caretaker to, in fact, mow all of the undergrowth from one side of the bush to the other, so that you could look beyond the tree stumps from one side of the 15 acres to the other. That is clearly not the sort of way in which the bush should be looked after. In recent years, particularly with the Royal Society putting on to the trust board—and I say “recent years”; that is, the last 30 to 35 years—Dr Brian Molloy, the stewardship of the bush has changed considerably. It is now in a much more natural state, and far more natural than it has been probably since the latter part of the 1800s. In recent years a predator fence has been put round the outside of that, and that has facilitated a number of native species being able to regenerate themselves inside that particular part of Christchurch. It is one of the hidden gems of the city, and it is very, very valuable, not for its particular monetary value but for its intrinsic value as being such an important remnant of what once covered a greater part of the Canterbury Plains.

The house itself is interesting. It has been renovated to about the 1900 style. But if you go back to 1990, the city council at that stage was considering what its future might be. I think Denis O’Rourke, the New Zealand First member, was probably on the council at that time. There was a decision made that it should be subject to a management plan and that restoration should be carried out on the house. One of the quirks of the 1947 Act was that there was the ability for the participants or the trust itself to levy the contributing counties a percentage of the rate base to fund their activities. By the time we got to 1990, immediately after the amalgamation, with just the one local authority, now the contributor, the potential for payment through the formula was quite considerable.

The council at that stage struck what I think was a very sensible arrangement in continuing to fund its operations, with a view to that funding renovating the property. A new roof was put on with Canadian shingles, which was most of the original type of roof. A full sprinkler system was put inside. There was earthquake strengthening put into all of the chimneys, and all of the fireplaces were kept operational, although only two of them are actually used these days, under current air consent policy. But the point is that having done all that work, this house, although it has suffered some damage, has come through the recent earthquakes extremely well.

What we see today is the trust board, in conjunction with the Christchurch City Council, working out what we need as a piece of legislation to guide us through the next long period of the history of the property. It does recognise, I think, the value that Christchurch can see in that property. I am very proud to say it is a heritage building, and it will continue to be a very important part of the fabric. But it is the bush that is the true gem, if you like, that the bill is setting out to protect.

I am very delighted to move this bill to its first reading today. I am sure that some of the history that goes around this particular part of Christchurch will interest the select committee as it goes about its work. It is appropriate that the bill does go to the Local Government and Environment Committee because the local government side of this is very, very evident in a positive way, and then the environmental protection that is afforded to the bush will be of interest to those on the committee who take that particular interest on board. I look forward to the select committee going about its deliberations in a timely manner, and the bill’s return to the House and ultimate passage.

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) : I am happy to take a call on the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the local member Gerry Brownlee for bringing this to the House. I also want to acknowledge the Riccarton Bush trustees for their work, who along with the Christchurch City Council legal services unit did much work in preparing the bill that we are examining now. As the member opposite has indicated, Riccarton Bush is in the Ilam electorate; it is not in the Wigram electorate. But it is only a few metres over the boundary. I observe that I can see it from my window.

This bill tidies up the 1947 Riccarton Bush Act and the governance arrangements that were put in place for the board for the Riccarton Bush trustees. It better defines their functions to provide for the continuation of the very good work they have been doing, and it enhances what they can do in preserving this. Labour will support this bill to go to the Local Government and Environment Committee. We believe this is based on good consultation. The board has been very involved in putting together this piece of work, local people have been consulted, and a number of Christchurch people have had their input.

We think it is really important that as Cantabrians confront their future, we preserve our past. Riccarton Bush and the land and buildings that are there are an important part of that past. We think that our heritage and preserving our heritage in our city is important and we would like to see some of those heritage buildings left standing. I will just indulge the historian in me for a few moments and get on the record some of the important history of this site. Riccarton Bush is an incredibly important part of our natural history. It is part of a protected remnant of bush that we once saw all over the Canterbury Plains. The species and the plants that we see growing there were once what much of the plains looked like. It is now, as the member bringing this bill to the House has noted, protected with a predator fence, and we are seeing some important work in terms of biodiversity in the Canterbury area taking place in this area.

This was a site that was also important to Ngāi Tahu. This was an important mahinga kai site, and it was also an important timber site for the iwi. It was from the bush that much of the carving and waka were produced, and it was also an important place for gathering pigeons and an important food source site.

I also note that Riccarton Bush was perhaps one of the first rewrapped and given back Christmas presents in Canterbury. The Deans actually signed their deal to buy the land with the agents of the Canterbury Association on Christmas Day in 1848. They promptly gave half the bush over to the emerging settlement to be used as a source of timber in building the city. This is something that I think resonates with many of us in Christchurch at the moment, thinking about building and rebuilding as we go about recreating a city. We had some settlers who had the foresight to think that their civic mind actually was to contribute to the city that was growing up around them.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: We’re not going to cut down the other half.

Dr MEGAN WOODS: Well, actually, I do note that by 1851 all of that timber had gone; the settlers had used all of it. The Deans, on the other hand, were exemplars of what we need to do in terms of preserving this bush. Theirs has actually survived. They used only timber that fell down, and they adopted what was very much a conservation model in terms of their own stand of trees that they were looking after. Much of the timber was used to build Homebush. That is just some of the history of the site.

The board, when it was looking at the legislation that was needed to enhance the governance of this area of land, identified a number of areas that needed tidying up. It said that the new legislation would make amendments to the Act, rather than repeal the Act that was in place. It elected to pass this amending piece of legislation because it wanted the original Act to actually stand as a historical document itself. But it said that the amendments needed to reflect the shape of local government as it is now and the financial planning that happens in local government as it is now. It needed to update the statutory functions of the board and it wanted to require the board to adopt a management plan much like a management plan that would happen under the Reserves Act, because, of course, this is governed by its own Act of Parliament. But one of the significant drivers for the board in seeking these amendments was the low level of statutory levy that was payable by the local councils. What was happening in reality was that much of their funding was actually topped up by additional grants.

Labour welcomes this tidying-up, particularly around this funding, and we welcome this particularly in light of the local government reforms that are currently going through this House. Who knows whether Riccarton Bush would be a core service under the local government reforms? This Act gives this incredibly important historical site within our city protections and gives its funding some certainty and some protections. There is a bit of a yes/no/maybe game going on with what will be regarded as a core service. V8 Supercars races? No. Garden shows? Yes. Who knows when it comes to Riccarton Bush? The kiwis in the bush—who knows whether they would be seen as a core service?

We are very happy to see this go to a select committee, as I noted at the beginning of my speech. We think that it has had good local public consultation, but we think the opportunity for more public input would be good. We welcome many of the provisions that are in the bill. I want to point especially to the statutory protection that expressly preserves the right of free public entry to Riccarton Bush and the lands vested in the board. I would like to congratulate the people who have put together this bill on having that provision in there. That is something to be acknowledged and to be congratulated.

I also note that the bill authorises the board to own and to acquire other lands for purchase or that are gifted to it. At the select committee consideration what I would like to see considered, and what we would like to see considered, is whether there could be protections against the sale of this asset. I do note that this bill was put together 4 or 5 years ago, at a time when the people putting it together would not have imagined the pressure that would be brought to bear on Christchurch City to sell off its assets. I do note that it is the very member who has brought this bill to the House who is putting that pressure on Christchurch City to sell its assets. So we would like to use the opportunity of a select committee to see whether there is a good opportunity to protect this most valuable asset for the people of Christchurch for ever. I did note with some relief that the member did note that there was not much monetary value in Riccarton Bush, so it has obviously gone through his thinking process. But we would like to see this preserved for ever for the people of Christchurch, and not put at risk. That is something a select committee could examine to strengthen an already very strong bill that is going to do much to make sure that Riccarton Bush is at the heart of a recreated Christchurch, and is there for generations more Christchurch people to enjoy. Thank you.

NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) : I rise to support the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill. I have been visiting Deans Bush in Riccarton all my life. I know that it is officially called Riccarton Bush, but locally, and perhaps fondly, it is known as Deans Bush, as a mark of respect to the Deans family, because, of course, it was the Deans family who donated that property to the people of Christchurch in 1914. Indeed, it was a most generous and appreciated gift.

Deans Bush is a wonderful stand of kahikatea. It is mixed with tōtara and mataī, and it really is an oasis of green very close to our city. It is the last of that kind of bush on the plains. I think those trees are possibly about 600 years old. On the fringe of that bush is the original Deans cottage, which was made out of wood cut out of the bush. It was built in 1843 and it is the oldest building standing on the Canterbury Plains. I am very pleased to be able to report that it is undamaged by the recent earthquakes.

The brothers John and William Deans came from Kirkstyle, Riccarton in Scotland, and they arrived in New Zealand in the early 1840s. After negotiating with local Māori, they settled at Riccarton. They became very successful farmers and traders, and over the years they built a very beautiful and very large Victorian-Edwardian home. I say Victorian-Edwardian because it was built over 30 or 40 years. And it still stands there. It stands there very proudly, but, unfortunately, is closed because of damage with the earthquakes. That home is known as Riccarton House, and the grounds were purchased by local councils in 1947. The legislation was changed at that time to include it with the bush.

Of course, the Deans were Scottish and good Presbyterians. In recent years, Riccarton Bush has become the spiritual home of the Scottish community in the city. There is now a monument to the Deans family there, and to the ordinary early Scots settlers, and regular Scottish events are held in the grounds. I am sure the Deans would enjoy those pipe band competitions, the Scottish dancing, the clan parades, the haggis eating, and particularly the whisky drinking.

The Deans were well established at Riccarton before the first four ships carrying settlers for the Canterbury Association arrived in our city. They came with a vision for the Canterbury Association to transplant a perfect Anglican society to New Zealand. Local folklore tells us that the location of Hagley Park between the main settlements for the Anglicans and those Presbyterian Deans was perhaps deliberate. It kept them well on the other side of the city, at arms length from the new settlement. I am not sure whether that is true, but the fact that the city fathers later allocated land for the Catholic community at the other end of town, near the gasworks, would tend to let us believe that it might be true.

This bill today is a further amendment of the original Act, and is necessary to update and modernise the governance structures to better define the role of the board, and to vest the land at 30 Kahu Road to the board. Deans Bush at Riccarton is now an especially lively place since the earthquakes, because although the old Deans homestead, as I said, is still closed with damage, it has become even more of a community centre, and every weekend farmers’ markets are held in the grounds. Apparently, John Deans was an early conservationist, because on his deathbed he asked his wife Jane to be sure that Riccarton Bush remained for ever. So this bill, which once again amends that original Act, brought to the House by the local member of Parliament, Gerry Brownlee—thank you, Gerry—will keep Riccarton Bush safe for many years to come. So I commend this bill to the House.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) : Like other members, I am delighted to be able to take a call on the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill. I want to begin by congratulating and commending the local member, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, MP for Ilam, for what is probably a lot of work, actually, that has gone on behind the scenes in introducing this bill. Even though it is quite a small bill, it has three parts, and I know there would have been a lot of consultation and engagement with local organisations to get it to this stage.

Like my colleague Megan Woods, member of Parliament for Wigram, I want to acknowledge the trustees and also the legal services team at the Christchurch City Council for the work they have put in. I am delighted that the member in charge of the bill has advised the House that he is proposing to refer it to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I was particularly touched by the way the member explained the links between local government and environment in the same way that he passionately described the need for protection of the bush and heritage buildings, and I would like him to repeat it—a lot. We like to hear it in Christchurch from the member in his other capacity as the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, because those are the two things that we are in danger of losing quite a lot of. The member’s obvious personal inclination came to the fore, and I personally want to hear more of it.

I would recommend that the Local Government and Environment Committee come to Christchurch. It is quite common during a local bill to come to a city. Some people, so I have heard, think there is not much to come to our city for, but I can advise them that that is not the case. I know that the local member—the member who just resumed her seat, Nicky Wagner—Megan Woods and I, and our other Canterbury colleagues, would be delighted to look after them and ensure they see a lot of our city. But it is seriously important that they go and see the actual area that is being discussed in this legislation.

We heard some excellent history from Megan Woods, and I want to thank her for bringing that information to the House. I know that during the consultation process the local member would have had a lot of engagement and discussion with the Deans family, who, of course, are very strong still in the affairs of our city and our region. I would be very curious to know—and perhaps the member could tell us in his concluding comments—whether they mentioned their continued frustration with the compulsory acquisition of private land that has been enabled because the Government has not taken any action to fix the part of the Resource Management Act that allows that. Also, because of the Central Plains Water Trust activity, part of their farm, which goes back as long as this very area, is now going to be compulsorily acquired. You know, it is hard to imagine in this day and age—[Interruption]—and we need smelling salts for Mr O’Rourke momentarily while we discuss this.

That farmland has been in the Deans family as long as this land has been in the Deans family, then later put in a trust, and now it will have a compulsory acquisition stamp on it, which the Minister could do something about. I would encourage him to do that—in fact, I would like to advise him that I have a member’s bill in my name, which for the second time will be presented to this House. Last time he clearly was not aware of the repercussions of the compulsory acquisition of private land, because he voted against it. I am sure that will be raised in future discussion with the Deans family.

I want to conclude as I started by acknowledging the work that the member has put into this bill, alongside the legal team at the city council and the trustees themselves. I listened to the member’s contribution as he began the first reading debate on the bill. He mentioned the chimneys, and it gave me a bit of inspiration to suggest one small thing that the member might like to do to fill a vacuum of time that will clearly now be in his life—because he has finished the work on this bill to this stage—and that is to use his powers under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation to grant all Cantabrians existing use rights so that we can have our log burners back in our rebuilt homes. The granting of existing use rights is a power that he does have under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation. That is the only change that is required. While we support the transition of the chimneys being lit through this Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill, so too could the member support constituents, all our constituents across our city, being able to light their log burners as they were able to prior to the February quake. It is a pleasure to support this legislation.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green) : Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Like others in the House, I am pleased to take a short call on the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill, which amends the Riccarton Bush Act 1914 and the Riccarton Bush Amendment Act 1947. The Green Party will be supporting this bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

I acknowledge the member for Ilam, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, and his recounting of a little of the history of the bill and the work of the board. The last major overhaul of the board’s functions and powers was in 1947. This bill will both modernise and update the governance arrangements for the board that manages Riccarton Bush, Riccarton House, Deans Cottage, and the very attractive grounds that surround those buildings.

Riccarton Bush is just along the road from the Green Party offices. It is an area that I used to bike through on the way to the university, and it has very high heritage and amenity value for Christchurch and for Canterbury. That, as other members have said, is because it is the last remnant of flood plain kahikatea forest on the plains. Deans Cottage is the oldest building on the plains, and both it and the Victorian homestead of Riccarton House are category I listed historic buildings.

The board’s careful stewardship of these assets has been recognised in several awards, including one from the city of Christchurch, the environmental award, in 1999, and another one in 2000, and Environment Canterbury’s resource management award in 2004. Certainly, like the Minister, I acknowledge the work of botanist Brian Molloy in terms of his expertise in guiding the management of Riccarton Bush. The bill, by better defining the board’s functions and improving its financial reporting and administration, will update these areas. It makes sense to have a financial plan. It makes sense to have a management plan for the bush because of the nature and importance of the assets that the board is charged with managing.

Certainly, Riccarton Bush has benefited from much greater attention to the ecology of the bush. There was a very generous grant by Grant and Marilyn Nelson’s Gama Foundation, which funded the erection of the predator fence. That has meant that Canterbury gecko have been reintroduced, and tree wētā, and that the bush has been part of the Department of Conservation’s Operation Nest Egg, where kiwi eggs are taken from the wild and hatched at the Willowbank Wildlife Reserve, and then the kiwis are reared to a stage where they can confront predators like stoats, before being released back into the wild.

But there is a problem with Riccarton Bush in relation to the earthquake, which the MP for Ilam may not be aware of. Because of the collapse of the cliffs at Sumner, where a lot of feral pigeons used to roost, a lot of pigeons are now roosting in the kahikatea trees of the bush. Their droppings are fouling the forest floor. These are feral pigeons; they are not the native kererū. They are quite a management problem for Riccarton Bush. The board, with its very modest budget of about $400,000 annually and the grants it gets from the Christchurch City Council, does not have the funds to control the feral pigeons. They are an ecological pest. The predator fence, obviously, does not keep them out. So the problem may be within the member’s responsibility for earthquake recovery. This avian problem in the bush is something that perhaps the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority could do something about.

I understand that the board did not want to repeal the original 1914 or 1947 legislation, because of the extensive history that they provide, but to me it makes more sense if the legislation is consolidated in one statute. I would be interested to see if there were submissions on that. Like the member for Wigram, I am pleased that the bill safeguards public access to Riccarton Bush and the grounds, though it does allow the board to charge for services such as the ranger-guided tours, and it does also allow for a licence for the café, which we hope will reopen when Riccarton House is reopened once the damage there has been repaired. The Green Party supports the bill and looks forward to public submissions on it. Thank you.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) : Deans Bush, with its remnant of kahikatea forest, and the Deans homestead since 1843, is an area of extraordinary beauty on the banks of the Avon River in Christchurch. It is a very important Christchurch City asset, one of many such assets in Christchurch that should never be sold—one of many assets in Christchurch that should never be sold. I would like to compare that statement with a speech made just a few minutes ago in this House by Nick Smith, who celebrated the fact that councils were able to sell land, including reserve land, and do what they like with it. That is not the situation as it should be, especially with properties like this.

This property has been well cared for, but only since about 1990, using ratepayers’ money, and that needs to continue. I joined the Christchurch City Council and was on it for 15 years, between 1989 and 2004. It was for the first time then that we committed the funding necessary for the preservation of this house. I remember going there and inspecting it along with other councillors, looking at the roof and the state of that, looking at rooms that were completely unusable, and looking at a lot of other very unkempt aspects of that particular property, including the bush itself. We committed voluntarily the funding necessary to make sure that that all changed, and what we see now is a property that we can all be proud of, despite the current earthquake damage. We did it because we knew it was needed and we knew it was valued by the people of Christchurch, who could visit it free of charge then as well.

For the same reasons, this Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill should now be supported because it brings the Riccarton Bush Act up to date. New Zealand First does have one serious reservation, which I will mention later. However, new sections 5 and 5A, in clause 14, do provide for a board of eight people, five of whom are appointed by the Christchurch City Council and two of whom must be community board members.

I would like to take this opportunity to remember the late Ishwar Ganda, who was a councillor for the Wigram ward—actually, it was called the Wigram-Riccarton community at that time. He was a staunch supporter of the Riccarton Bush and Riccarton House, and he was a long-time member of the Riccarton Bush Trust board. I would also like to acknowledge David Close, who was the councillor who actually did insist on the fitting of sprinklers to the property as he did to many heritage and other properties owned by the council at that time. The Deans family, of course, can appoint two board members as well, and always have, and the Royal Society one member, too. That is an appropriate mix of members for the board. The council supplies the money; therefore it is appropriate it should appoint five out of the eight board members.

New sections 4 and 4A, in clause 4, concerning the terms of office of board members, and new sections 10A, 10B, and 10C, in clause 5, relating to functions and powers of the board, are also appropriate and do modernise the provisions for the board and bring its functions up to date.

New section 14, in clause 7, confirms public access without the restrictions that were in the old Act, the Riccarton Bush Act 1914, and makes sure that no fee would be payable for public access, and that is very important. However, the reservations that New Zealand First has do relate to some of the aspects of the financial plan. Section 21 of the principal Act assumed a grant, and it was always made available, but the new sections give the board a bit of a blank cheque. The city council, in new section 23(3), in clause 10, can only approve, and not disapprove, of the financial plan, which I think is something of a defect. Although it is true that with five out of eight board members there is not much of a risk that there would be an inappropriate financial plan, it is actually not good law to make it possible for the council to only approve the financial plan and not for it to be able to disapprove it. The legislation should at least say that if there is an issue then the board and the council should be able to sit down and agree upon it, provided always, of course, that there is sufficient funding for the management and the operational capital plans. Subject to that reservation New Zealand First will be happy to support this bill going forward.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) : It is with pleasure that I speak to the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill. I say to the House that I always thought Riccarton Bush was known as Deans Bush, so there is one thing that I learnt today. This is a good bill because it does what a number of other good local bills that have been brought to previous Parliaments have done. Indeed, we have had a look at two local bills previously this evening. What the bill does is modernise arrangements for the governing body of, in this case, Riccarton Bush.

The history has been fascinating. I say as a South Islander of a more southern persuasion who is always travelling to Christchurch that just off Riccarton Road there is the magic of what I thought was Deans Bush. It is something to look forward to, as I do tend to go down that road, past the Green Party offices too, quite frequently because Christchurch Boys’ High School is fairly close by as well—if my geography is correct. It is a lovely part of Christchurch. You can tell when you go to Christchurch that Christchurch folk are understandably proud of Riccarton Bush, proud of the legacy of the Deans family, and also very proud indeed of the kiwi breeding programme, of which I am also aware, and of the kahikatea forest remnants.

Looking though this bill, the objectives of the bill are pretty straightforward. It is to modernise the governing arrangements. The speaker previous to my contribution, Denis O’Rourke, outlined some of the clauses, which I have also noted, that tidy up and modernise the governance for this organisation and provide for terms of office of members of the board, detailing functions of the board, allowing for the establishment of committees—that is a more modern way of delegating functions amongst board members—and empowering the board to delegate some of its functions and powers. It is pretty straightforward. I do not have the misgivings shared in the previous member’s speech.

I note in clause 10 new sections requiring the board to adopt a financial plan to be integrated with the planning processes of the Christchurch City Council. The next part of that clause provides for the application of the Local Government Act 2002. Clearly, the Local Government and Environment Committee has got some work to do on this bill, but none the less it is, yet again, another good local bill. I commend the local member, Gerry Brownlee, for bringing it to the House. Local bills do not just appear on the Order Paper; there is a lot of work and a lot of consultation going on before that happens. I look forward to scrutinising the bill through the course of its passage through the select committee and then back in the House.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) : Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. I am pleased to speak in support of the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill. Along with my other colleagues, I support its first reading and its referral to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

This bill, in terms of modernising the governance arrangements with the Riccarton Bush trustees, really concerns the beautiful piece of historic bush that makes up the property in question. We have heard a lot this evening about the wonderful history that Canterbury and Christchurch people and the Scottish community have with the bush area. It also goes further back, as my colleague Megan Woods touched on. It goes right back to Ngāi Tūahuriri, when the bush in its Ngāi Tahu name was called Putaringamotu. My own tūpuna would have frolicked around in the bush, catching the kereru pigeon on their seasonal travels as they went around the motu of Te Waipounamu. I can just see them now occupying the bush area, as it would have been quite an extensive forest in those days. So, yes, there is a lot of history and a lot of connection that all the communities have with that area. I do acknowledge the Hon Gerry Brownlee for supporting this bill, the other “member for Riccarton Bush” within the great, vast area of Te Tai Tonga. We also support it in recognition, also, of that historical connection.

I was just thinking about the issue that Eugenie Sage, the Green member, raised earlier regarding the feral pigeons. I am pretty sure that some members of Ngāi Tūahuriri, after their mutton bird season expeditions, could do something about that if they were given the opportunity.

This is a bill that I am pleased to support. I was just having a flick through, and I have one suggestion, which I hope is considered by the select committee. It was raised by Ms Sage, and it would be perhaps to consolidate or recast the bill into a single Act. It is 98 years old now, the initial 1940 legislation that set up the trust. Then we have had a succession of amendment bills: I think there was a significant one in 1947, and then a series of ones that came further on. Thank goodness we have got electronic updates on legislation these days, because back in the day when they had to glue in the pieces of amendments, in terms of the statute book, to deal with trying to piece this piece of legislation together would be quite a task. So that would be just one suggestion that perhaps will be taken up through submissions to the select committee.

I know that the trustees want to retain that historic connection, I guess, through the legislation, but the purpose of the bill is to modernise and to bring the processes of the board up to date, and perhaps that could be a worthwhile suggestion—to modernise the whole Act completely and recast it into a single consolidated Act in 2012.

There is a great history there. I also like to think, in recognition of that history, that these are taonga, these kahikatea trees. I do not know too much about botany, but I do know that the kahikatea is the tallest native tree, and it is significant in Māoridom because we have a pepeha saying “Me uru kahikatea”. The kahikatea is the tallest tree. You always see kahikatea trees in clumps. You will never see a single tree, and it is because of the roots of the kahikatea. They bind together, and that is what “Me uru kahikatea” means: to bind together and stay strong. So perhaps recognition of Putaringamotu in the make-up of Riccarton Bush would be appropriate as well. But I support this bill through to the select committee. Kia ora tātou.

MOJO MATHERS (Green) : It is my pleasure to speak to the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill tonight. Like others who have spoken here from Christchurch, Riccarton Bush has special significance for me for several reasons. As a young student more than 25 years ago I used to wander through the bush, and I have to confess that because at that time the bush was quite trampled and degraded, I did not find it that impressive compared with some other places that you can be in the South Island. But a couple of years later, when on a guided tour as part of my ecology class, the significance of the bush was explained to me and my eyes were really opened. I should explain that there are hardly any places left in the Canterbury ecological region where the original vegetation remains. In fact, it is less than 1 percent, which is pitiful. So this means that every remnant is incredibly precious and deserves the best protection, management, and preservation for future generations.

Riccarton Bush serves as a reminder of what the Canterbury Plains used to be like before human settlement, and I think we always need that reminder. Since I was first there 25 years ago the bush has made a remarkable recovery under the management of the Riccarton Bush Trust. I agree with the Hon Gerry Brownlee that it is now one of the hidden gems of Christchurch. In particular, the rejuvenation and restoration of the bush that has occurred during the last 25 years has been absolutely wonderful, and much of this progress has happened since the predator-proof fence was erected. That has allowed the native flora and fauna to flourish, birdlife to thrive, and so on. That has also allowed the reintroduction of small populations of the Canterbury tree wētā and the threatened Canterbury gecko, which are now both in the area, and also a creche for juvenile kiwi before they are released into the wild. So it is growing and flourishing all the time. I understand that they are now planning to reintroduce other bird species such as tomtits and the rifleman.

With such a wonderful vision for Riccarton Bush I think it is absolutely timely that the management, plans, and so on, and the way that it is being governed, are updated, because this will allow the vision to really flourish in the future. When it comes to public submissions the Green Party will welcome the Local Government and Environment Committee hearings being held in Christchurch to allow the local public to submit, and to hear their particular input as to how the vision for further restoration of the bush can be improved upon. Thank you.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) : I thank all members for their contributions on this bill, the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill. I am sure it will be quite an enjoyable select committee process for those who are involved, because this is a part of Canterbury, and, indeed, Christchurch, that has a very rich history. I want to just acknowledge that the very first chairman of the Riccarton Bush Trust after the gift in 1914 was John Deans III. He was the son of John Deans II, who was the son of John Deans, the brother of William Deans. William Deans died very shortly after their arrival in Canterbury, and John Deans farmed that property himself for quite some time. Then, of course, when he went back to Scotland, he married Jane Deans. Jane McIlraith was her maiden name, and he had been betrothed to her, I think, for some 12 years, and finally went back to marry her. Whilst coming back to New Zealand he was horseback riding on the Isthmus of Panama, got caught in the rain, took a cold, and never really recovered from that. So John Deans II really did not get to know his father as well as he might have. He, of course, then had a very large family. The property that is being amalgamated by the trust today became the home of, I think, John Deans III, who was also the first chairman of the trust that I spoke of before.

In my time I have known Patrick Deans, who was a trustee, Hugh Deans, Richard Deans, and Hugh’s son, whose name escapes me just at the present time but who has been a great contributor. And, of course, the chairman today is Charles Deans. In between times Richard Harrington, who was the Mayor of Riccarton, was chairman of the trust for a very long time. So it has had very good stewardship from people who are quite passionate about it. Denis O’Rourke mentioned one of the trustees before who was equally passionate about the place.

The connection to Homebush was mentioned by Ruth Dyson, and that of course is also a home that has been lost due to the earthquakes, and that brings its own sadness. Some of the barns that went with the farm on the property of Christchurch Boys’ High School have also been lost, after so many years. So it is important that that house does get back on its feet and does get recovered.

Can I just also mention that in a country like New Zealand, where we have so few degrees of separation, for the time I was on the trust the trust’s secretary was Roger Cave. Roger Cave is the brother-in-law of Prime Minister John Key. So there are a lot of connections in this House, not only to local members but to others as well.

In the front of the property, away from the bush, there is quite a splendid stand of oak trees. The seeds for those oak trees were provided to the Deans family, to Jane Deans and her son, by Governor George Grey. They are known as the George Grey oaks. They stand there very proudly. But I am pleased that so many people have recognised the value of the bush itself—the remnant stand of kahikatea. The site is known, as the member for Te Tai Tonga pointed out, as Putaringamotu. I believe that is “the place of the severed ear”. I have asked Rick Tau a number of times exactly what the story was behind that, and he has given a bit of a gruff laugh and never really let on what it was about. I suspect he was trying to make up something that was pretty fantastic.

At the time we launched the management plan for this bush, Rick Tau did speak on behalf of Ngāi Tahu. He spoke most eloquently, as he always does about the value of whichever particular project he is involved in. He said of this place that he was happy that Ngāi Tahu could always have communication with the trustees, but did not need to be on the trust because the original lease to the Deans brothers was a genuine one. It was for some 6 miles in a radius from the site that is roughly where the house is now. He made the comment that when the settling company the Canterbury Association came to New Zealand in 1850, both the Māori and the Deans got done. I am sure that many of the explanations for these stories will come out during the Committee stage, the second reading, and the third reading, and I look forward to all those processes.

Thank you to all the members who have done so much work on this bill, and I must say that although I am proud to bring it to the House, other people have done the work behind it, including the legal services team from the Christchurch City Council, and they should be congratulated on that. Thank you.

• Bill read a first time.

• Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) : I move, That the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill had its genesis as long ago as December 2009, when it was introduced at the first reading by my friend and colleague the Hon Amy Adams. Due to her ministerial promotion, she has not been able to proceed this legislation to its conclusion. So I want to acknowledge and thank her for her foresight in bringing the bill to the House, and in entrusting me with the role of completing the work she started.

Although the bill has undergone something of an overhaul in respect of its structure and wording, its fundamental purpose remains the same—that is, to provide increased transparency and public accountability for professional third-party collectors who are in the business of collecting funds on behalf of registered charities. At least $2.5 billion a year is donated by New Zealanders to registered charities. It is not only money that New Zealanders commit; we commit time and effort to our communities through sports clubs, Rotary Clubs and Lions clubs, local church groups, and advocacy groups. But when that commitment is financial, there is a reasonable expectation that the funds donated reach their intended destination. There is definitely a cost to raising funds, but a trend has emerged where fund-raising organisations are used by charities to assist with the collection process. Indeed, because of that trend, those donating money do have a right to be given accurate information about the proportion of those funds that are retained by those groups.

I want to restate my thanks to those who made submissions to the Commerce Committee in the last Parliament, and also to officials from the Ministry of Consumer Affairs for their advice, particularly with the reframing of the legislation to provide a more effective means of delivering the policy intent.

I want to touch on a couple of the comments made in the Committee of the whole House—in particular, comments by the Opposition that although the bill does not do any harm, it does not do anything, and, even more cruelly, comments by Mr Parker, who described it as a worthless waste of money. I find that somewhat ironic, given the undignified manner with which his party approached members’ days last year. I think he should reflect on his party’s contribution to the worthless waste of money on members’ days that occurred in 2011.

I am actually more compelled by his former colleague Carol Beaumont’s comments at the first reading, when she said that it was a good bill and that it addresses an area of concern for the public, which is why Labour is supporting it. There is a good reason for that support. The public’s perception of, and confidence in, the likelihood that the money solicited on behalf of charities actually gets to those charities are reducing. In its briefing to the committee, the ministry reported that Consumer New Zealand informed it that the cost of third-party collectors for charities is a common complaint, and an online poll taken around that time in 2010 showed that 95 percent of respondents wanted greater transparency of the cost of third parties.

The Charities Commission also reported regularly receiving complaints relating to third parties, and noted a rising awareness in the media of the use of third-party contractors. Its 2010 trust and confidence survey indicated reducing levels of trust and confidence in charities, and reduced confidence that a reasonable proportion of donations get to their end cause. In summary, although confidence in our charitable sector remains high, it is dropping. The rise in prominence of third-party collectors is co-related with—and, in my view, at least in part causing—that loss of confidence. Examples of perceived unethical practice by collectors include charities receiving less than a quarter of the donations raised by telemarketers. Examples have also been reported where long-term planned giving arrangements see the first year or more of contributions withheld by the fund-raising organisation before the charity sees the money coming through.

I sense that those involved in the fund-raising area, including members of the Fundraising Institute of New Zealand who submitted on the bill, have an honest belief that, firstly, the amount of money withheld by them in commissions is appropriate, and, secondly, there is a risk that members of the public misunderstand, or may be overly swayed against giving by the transparency that this legislation, when passed, could provide. I respectfully disagree with that view. I sense that the submitters—the institute and the other submitters—against this bill are concerned that their commissions, when revealed, might be misconstrued, and that people could be dissuaded from giving. But I have more confidence in New Zealanders to understand the context of arrangements of this nature and to give generously notwithstanding that transparency. However, I do accept that it may result in movements of donations away from organisations where such transparency reveals the worst excesses of commission collecting, or possibly it may have a moderating effect on those organisations. That is one purpose of the bill. So I would applaud that development, were it to occur—hardly a law that does not do harm but does nothing, and certainly not a worthless waste of time.

The Fundraising Institute also suggested that the best way forward is self-regulation. I am quite fond of self-regulation in most circumstances, but I do note that in the 3 years since the bill was entered into the ballot, I am not aware of any attempts at self-regulation in order to prevent the need for this legislation being put in place. In any event, it was also noted to the committee by those who did engage in excessive commission-collecting—known by some as charity muggers or “chuggers”—that they were not actually members of organisations that would make them subject to voluntary regulation.

The bill in its final form will provide for regulation-making powers for the Minister of Consumer Affairs. Concern has been expressed that this will not occur, or that the environment will be too complex for the regulation-making powers to be effective. The Minister of Consumer Affairs, the Hon Simon Bridges, advises me that he is prepared to draft regulation in a timely manner, and to consult with affected parties, as is required by the bill. The House can be sure that both I and the Hon Amy Adams will be diligent in ensuring that our colleague delivers on that commitment.

I trust the generosity of New Zealanders, and I trust their ability to discern fairly the information provided on an appropriate commission or sum withheld. I have no doubt that their enthusiasm for charitable giving will remain high. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : I am pleased to be standing in support of the final reading of the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. I want to traverse a little bit the history of why we are debating this bill separate from the review of the whole area of fair trading that is being undertaken at the moment. I think that legislation is in front of the Commerce Committee at the moment. Jonathan Young is helping me out, from the other side of the House, and nodding his head. As I am no longer on the Commerce Committee, I do not necessarily keep myself up to date with all of the particular goings-on in that committee.

I think it is a shame that the bill is separate from that legislation, because the legislative framework that is now in front of the select committee is actually, I think, far more integrated than dealing with things on a piecemeal basis would ever allow. I think it would have been better to be able to include this bill with it. However, we were persuaded, and we agreed as a select committee—and I chaired that committee at the time—at the request of Amy Adams, the sponsor of the bill at that time, to allow this bill to proceed, because it had raised a significant amount of concern within the community. Certainly, that was reflected in the submissions that we received, but the submissions were not unanimous in the views that they expressed. We did not receive from all of the charities universal support for the approach that the bill was adopting.

I think people were relatively comfortable with going down a regulation-making pathway that has all of the consultative requirements, as the previous speaker, Michael Woodhouse, has just explained to the House, but they were a little bit concerned about the message that might be sent about certain approaches that were adopted by professional fund-raising organisations fund-raising—totally transparently—on behalf of charitable organisations but expecting a professional share of that for the professional services they were providing. I think one of the clearest examples we had of that was the organisation Greenpeace, where people could, in fact, be contributing for up to a year before the professional fund-raising arm of the organisational aspects had been fully recompensed, and then, as far as Greenpeace was concerned, it had a member for life. It was that ongoing gift of the lifetime contribution to the organisation that actually made the initial contribution worthwhile. It did not want to see anything passed through Parliament that actually prevented it from having professional fund-raisers being able to operate in that way. I see that the member is shaking his head, and I know that the legislation is crafted in a way—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair.

• Debate interrupted.