O'Rourke Denis: Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 June 2012. Volume:680;Page:2968. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
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.