Dyson Ruth: Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill Riccarton Racecourse Bill — First ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill Riccarton Racecourse Bill — First Readings[Sitting date: 22 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7544. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): As I have commented before on Thursday afternoons it is an increasingly good habit of this Government—and it has not got very many—to have bills talked about where there is common agreement. It is a very nice way to finish the parliamentary week in my view so I am delighted to be standing in support of the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Bill. I am also really impressed with the number of members of the public who have come along to hear these two Christchurch bills. I am sure that they suddenly heard on the news—breaking news—that these bills were going to be debated and have come into Parliament to support the progress.So these two bills which—as the member who has just resumed his seat Scott Simpson correctly acknowledged—have been sensibly brought in tandem propose to develop 38 hectares of the Riccarton Racecourse in Christchurch for housing. About 600 homes are proposed to be developed under the process set out under the bill. Can I acknowledge first of all the Canterbury Jockey Club. My colleague Dr Megan Woods is a historian and has outlined the history of this great club extraordinarily well so I will not go into further detail on that other than to just acknowledge them. I also want to acknowledge Megan Woods as the local MP responsible for this area. She clearly has better luck in the racing business than her colleague Grant Robertson and certainly better than me. My horse is still racing I think actually; since the last time I put a bet on it has not quite completed the race yet.But also I want to acknowledge the way that Dr Woods has led and supported the community discussion around this. This is not an easy thing for people to have just imposed on them so she has ensured that local people have had their voices heard in the establishment of the plan that drove the need for this legislation. I am sure she will also be encouraging people to make submissions so that if there are changes that can be made particularly in terms of people’s access in and out of their own homes and the amenities that have operated within that area and in the future that any of those issues can be resolved during the select committee process. I want to also acknowledge the Minister Dr Nick Smith for bringing this legislation to the House.So the bill revokes the reserve status of this part of the Riccarton Racecourse. It enables the board to develop residential properties. It requires a portion of the residential development to be affordable and I just want to correct Mr Simpson’s maths. It is proposed that 30 percent of the houses are affordable which is around $450000. I am not sure that “affordable” and “$450000” work for everyone—they certainly do not work for me. But actually Mr Simpson said that most of the houses will be affordable—30 percent is less than 50 percent which is half so it is not most. Most is more than half; 30 percent is less than half. So a third of the proposed 600 houses will be “affordable”. I do not think that $450000 is affordable and I would really be supportive of a larger percentage of this development being in the genuinely affordable area. And as Mr Simpson again correctly pointed out there is a process for the Ngāi Tahu first right of refusal provisions under the Treaty settlement to be dealt with as part of this move to have residential property allowed.I just want to speak on a slightly tangential topic but I would really encourage the Local Government and Environment Committee which is where this bill is proposed to be referred to consider the point that is also being discussed at the Government Administration Committee at the moment in relation to another bill in the name of Dr Nick Smith. It has exactly the same provision in this bill. So Dr Smith has brought two bills to the House that change or amend the status of a very old trust that has been established under a single Act of Parliament. That is how things were done in those days and my proposal is that they need not be done in a continuing way by a single Act of Parliament in the future. I do not think that it is any longer necessary to have Acts of Parliament to proceed with these issues.So that is the challenge that I would put to the chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee and we could have joint meetings with our select committee to discuss this point because we are going to try and progress it. It raises the question of the legal status of boards of trustees. In these bills the board has been established under the 1878 Act and it is simply continued under this legislation. There are minimal requirements for that board under clauses 5 6 11 and 12 of the Riccarton Racecourse Bill. In my view there is potential for the board of trustees to become an incorporated society. That way its actions would be within the established body of public law rather than by a single Act of Parliament. In 1878 when this board was established that was the way things were done but my challenge to the Local Government and Environment Committee and to the whole of Parliament is to ask: is this still the best way to do thingsin 2015?My research shows that there are about a dozen Acts of Parliament that have provisions in relation to racecourses. Most of them are in the South Island—heaven only knows why that is the case. But I consider that this bill should trigger a review of the status of their governance arrangements. With those concerns about the definition of affordability about the low percentage of houses within this 600 house development that are required to be affordable and with my challenge about the status of individual bills in Parliament I commend and support the progress of this bill.