Bradford Sue: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — First Reading 
Bradford Sue: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1736] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 On the surface the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill is an innocuous little number. The explanatory note of the bill itself starts off by stating that the bill “makes a number of non-controversial changes to the status of … land land titles” and so on. However this bill is not innocuous and it is not non-controversial. The Green Party will oppose it every step of the way unless there are changes to the section of the bill that deals with the Auckland Art Gallery development. We are appalled that the bid to reclassify part of Albert Park was included in a bill that would normally just fly through the House without anyone—the public or politicians—being particularly aware of its existence. Last July the Green Party wrote to the then Minister for Land Information the Hon David Parker and asked him to consider removing this portion of the bill because it was the subject of such major contention in Auckland. But unfortunately the Minister considered that the issue had to be dealt with at the select committee. 
So here we are today with a bill that is supposed to be non-controversial but that in fact contains within it something absolutely abhorrent to many Aucklanders: the taking of a small portion of Albert Park for the art gallery extension. Public space in central Auckland is a rare commodity and every square metre is precious as our population grows apace particularly given the population density in the central city. For many of us who live or have lived in the central city and/or who have gone to Auckland University or the Auckland University of Technology Albert Park holds a special place in our hearts and memories. Albert Park has played quite a large part in my life in all sorts of ways and I am sure that I am not the only MP in this House today who feels that way. I call on all members—whom I hear around me right now—who care about Albert Park to join me in working to stop this section of the bill going through. 
The area this bill allows the art gallery to take is of special significance. It is one of only three small areas on the western edge of the park that provide access to the park from the city. To take away this space or to narrow it down even further will cut off the park even more from the city side. Open and green space in the middle of downtown Auckland is rare and precious. Neither I nor the Green Party has anything against the art gallery but we do not believe that the gallery should be extended at the expense of the park. 
Proponents of this open-space grab are acting as if it is the only option for the art gallery but of course there are always other options. During the consent hearings on this matter the gallery’s director himself Chris Saines actually agreed that even the new modernised gallery would have a limited life and that there would be a need to move on to a second gallery in the future regardless. I would far rather see a fine second gallery on the drawing board now than see the current project cut into scarce open space in Albert Park. 
Judith Tizard of course was a champion of the art gallery project and perhaps that was why Labour was so determined to keep these controversial clauses in a bill that was supposed to be non-controversial. She seemed determined to make sure the gallery could expand into this small area of Albert Park. However I believe that the new Government does not have quite the same allegiance to that former Minister and I call on National to look again at the issues involved and to support the call from local people in Auckland from the Auckland Regional Council and from the Green Party to save Albert Park from this encroachment. 
Ordinary Aucklanders have got involved in this partly through a petition signed by more than 1100 people who object to the 1117 square metres of the park being reclassified from a historic reserve to a local purpose art gallery reserve which is inconsistent with the policies originally put in place to protect urban green space. I agree with those submitters in their call for the Auckland City Council to look for an additional site for an adjunct art gallery and not to take any land from Albert Park for the art gallery development or remove or prune any trees for the purpose of that development. 
Once this piece of land is gone and the affected trees are cut down or pruned the land and trees will be gone forever. Section 18 of the Reserves Act 1977 establishes historic reserve classification as being “for the purpose of protecting and preserving in perpetuity such places objects and natural features … as are of historic archaeological cultural educational and other special interest.” Albert Park encompasses many of these things: it is a public park a historic reserve an archaeological site of both settler and Maori heritage a geological site a green open space part of an urban forest and a visual amenity. 
We believe that at the moment most people in Auckland are actually blissfully unaware of the Auckland City Council’s plan to build on Albert Park. I am also conscious that many MPs in this Parliament may be unaware that these clauses lurk inside this bill. The Green Party will be doing everything it can to amend the bill as it progresses through Parliament and I certainly hope other parties will join us in ensuring the protection of this small but significant portion of central Auckland’s rare and precious open space.