Kaye Nikki: Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Kaye Nikki: Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 17 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5917. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to be speaking on the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill. I would like to acknowledge the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee Nicky Wagner; Te Ururoa Flavell the sponsor of this bill; and also the local MP and Minister the Hon Simon Bridges for the great work that he has been doing in Tauranga. As has already been mentioned this afternoon and this early evening the purpose of this bill is to repeal the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act 1975. The purpose of the principal Act as we know was to transfer 73.5 hectares of the seabed and foreshore of Tauranga harbour from the Bay of Plenty Harbour Board as the owner of the land to the Mount Maunganui Borough Council. As we know the borough council reclaimed approximately 23.5 hectares of the total area. We know as well that this principal Act no longer has any authority because the authority to reclaim the balance of the area was revoked by the Foreshore and Seabed Endowment Revesting Act 1991. 
What was really pleasing and it was mentioned by a couple of speakers this early evening was that there was one submission and it was a joint submission—that is my understanding—from both Nga Potiki-a-Tamapahore Trust and the Tauranga City Council. The key thing about that one submission was that it was collaborative. The submission supported the purpose of the bill for several reasons. The first was that the Tauranga City Council has no intention to reclaim further land. The second was that the repeal of the principal Act will provide—and I think this is a very very important point and it has been made by a number of other speakers as well—some vindication to those Nga Potiki kaumatua and other members of the community who actually protested against the principal Act. My colleague Nick Smith quite rightly articulated that really what we are doing here is we are repealing an Act that does not have any significance but it does at one level for Nga Potiki kaumatua and other members of the community who protested against the principal Act have significance because they actually did protest against that. The repeal of the principal Act as has been mentioned by Te Ururoa Flavell will help heal past conflicts and strengthen an already positive relationship between Nga Potiki and Tauranga City Council. 
The only other thing that I would like to really cover is that in the Local Government and Environment Committee there was actually an amendment within the committee that recommended inserting a new clause a sunset clause which effectively says the Act would expire 28 days after it comes into force. The whole purpose of that is that without that clause one Act with no continuing effect would be replaced in the statute book with another. 
We are all aware of the history. Effectively this Act did transfer that part of the seabed of Tauranga harbour to the Mount Maunganui Borough Council. We are aware that only 23.5 hectares of that piece of land was transferred. We are also aware that there was a piece of legislation that effectively revoked that principal Act but the purpose of this Act and we saw this through that very collaborative submission from Nga Potiki and the Tauranga City Council is actually to also acknowledge and vindicate—I use this word from one of the departmental reports—Nga Potiki kaumatua and other members of the community who had protested against the principal Act. 
The final point that I would like to make is that during the application process to upgrade Tauranga City Council’s waste-water treatment plant and when these other iwi and stakeholders expressed grievances at the time Tauranga City Council and stakeholders actually concurred—and I think this might have been in 2006—with the repeal of the principal Act and returning that legal status of the land to what it was pre-1975 and that was appropriate. So it has been a couple of years since this has come to Parliament but as I said before that one submission was incredibly collaborative. I think what our select committee managed to do was make a very worthwhile clause around that sunset clause and it was a very collaborative process across the select committee. I would like to reiterate my support for the chair of the select committee Nicky Wagner; for the member who sponsored this bill Te Ururoa Flavell; for the local MP the Hon Simon Bridges; and for my other colleagues Paul Goldsmith Maggie Barry and Jacqui Dean. I support this bill to the House.