Ardern Shane: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — First Reading 
Ardern Shane: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1739] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Reserve and Other Lands Disposal Bill. It is unfortunate that I was tied up with other parliamentary duties and I was not able to listen to what I bet was a very eloquent Minister’s speech. I am sure it would have been very precise. I am particularly interested in the area of this bill to do with the Waipa District Council. As others have said I am the MP for Taranaki - King Country. The Waipa District Council is in Waikato but it is in my electorate—go figure. It sits right in the heart of Waikato in Te Awamutu and covers a wide area right up to the Waikato Territorial Authority which is also partly in my electorate. The history in regard to the parcel of land in the bill is quite a long one and it is quite a substantial pocket of land. 
Before I touch on that I shall read the general policy statement in the explanatory note. It states: “This Bill makes a number of non-controversial changes to the status of parcels of land land titles and previous Reserves and Other Lands Disposal (ROLD) Acts.” I have just discovered that apparently that sort of Act—or bill as it is at the moment—is described as a ROLD bill. I am sure the learned Minister gave the House an explanation as to the origins of that term and what it means and I am waiting in anticipation to read the  
Hansard 
 and find out that explanation. There we go: it is a ROLD bill. 
My point is that when in Opposition and reading an opening comment like “non-controversial” Opposition members’ antennae suddenly prick up and they become very nervous. I noticed the member Sue Bradford did so and she highlighted it as an area of concern; likewise Hone Harawira who has just resumed his seat. But under the guidance of the new National Government and this Minister I think they have no reason to fear a recurrence of any of what has happened in the past with regard to those kinds of non-controversial things. 
In Taranaki there are a large number of little bits of land—primarily schools that were closed under the last Labour Government in fact—that it is a pity could not be included in legislation like this. The Office of Treaty Settlements has looked at them with advice from Te Puni Kokiri and it has said they are not required to be part of the land-banking process yet those buildings and properties languish in disrepair getting worse all the time. They are assets that are declining. I cannot for the life of me understand why that should be the case. Certainly under the new Government I know that that issue will be moved forward. Even if local iwi decide that the land should be part of the settlement process—and in this case they have not—under the National Government those settlements will be moved forward with much better integrity than has happened in the past. So Maori will have their day in that regard. 
The particular clause in this bill that is of relevance to the Waipa District Council is clause 50 relating to sections 51 and 52. Clause 50 states: “trust land means the land comprising 203.7996 hectares”—so not an insignificant amount of land—“contained in computer freehold register 78214 (being sections 23 and 26 Block”—well I am not familiar with roman numerals but it is VII which is six—“Pirongia Survey District).” So there we go. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: That’s seven. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Six. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Crusade for literacy and numeracy! 
Hon Member 
: The member can debate it. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: There we go. There is a bit of a debate about that. The background to this particular piece of land is as stated in clause 51(1) “On 9 June 1942 Te Awamutu Borough Council Otorohanga County Council Hamilton Borough Council Raglan County Council and Waipa County Council entered into an agreement to purchase the Government interest in the trust land with Te Awamutu Borough Council holding the land in trust for itself and the other councils for afforestation and water conservation …”. Now if members listened to some of the debate in the House today they would think that conservation water reticulation and water protection were new ideas and here we see that way back in 1942 the councils in central Waikato were involved in such a project. As clause 51(1) also states the “agreement was validated by section 10 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act 1942 and vesting notices published in the  
Gazette … 
” in 1958. Clause 51(2) states: “On 15 July 1960 Raglan County Council withdrew from the agreement and a supplementary agreement was signed by the remaining parties to reflect this change. This agreement was also validated in legislation by section 14 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act 1960.” So members can see that this particular proposal has had quite a long gestation period going back before the last Labour Government. Most of these things have a long gestation and this one obviously is as good as any. 
Clause 51(3) states: “Changes to local government organisation in 1970 and 1989 and arrangements between the councils again altered the parties to the original agreement so that by 2003 the legal and beneficial interest in the trust land resided solely with the Waipa District Council.” Hence the need for the changes now. It goes on: “In addition the purpose of the reserve had changed from afforestation water conservation and scenic purposes to a reserve for afforestation and water conservation purposes …” gazetted in 1973 on page 360 I say for the learned Minister Richard Worth in case he wants to go and clarify that. The Waipa District Council at this point “wishes to have the trusts cancelled and the reference to them on the computer register in respect of the trust land removed.” I am sure that at the end of this process that is exactly what will happen; I am confident of that. The Minister is nodding so it seems as though that will happen. 
Clause 52 is entitled “Trust land free of trusts” and it states that the trusts affecting the trust land are to be removed. So there you go Mr Deputy Speaker; as the land is very near to your own electorate I am sure you are very interested in all that. Certainly the next time there is a game of Trivial Pursuit in the Waikato you will be able to quote that back from  
Hansard 
 so it will be useful to you. 
Clause 42 relates to the Sugar Loaf Islands Protected Marine Area in the New Plymouth district. That is also for the learned Minister in one of the territorial authorities in my electorate the New Plymouth District Council—one of eight. This change is another great area of conservation. So once again those in the Green Party and others who think they are the first horse out of the blocks in terms of conservation need to go back and study some of this history. This matter will be tidied up by this bill and at the end of that the people of New Plymouth will be very happy with that change. 
I will leave the rest of that to my colleague Jonathan Young who I think may be following along in this debate and will complete my contribution today by pointing out to those who are concerned about the non-controversial changes in this bill that they will get their chance to raise those concerns in the select committee because under a National Government everybody gets the chance to have their day on these issues. This is a new change for Parliament. I can understand that members are not used to it because it did not happen under the last Government. This will be a new experience. There are some new members and they will understand that when a National Government puts up a bill that states it is non-controversial then most likely that is what it will be.