Twyford PhilPart 1 Preliminary provisionsPHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): We are looking forward to a good debate this evening on the Point England Development Enabling Bill. If I may I will use this first call to set out a bit of an overview of Labour's position on the bill and our views which we will set out in much more detail in the course of the debate. The bill deals with a section of land in Tāmaki in east Auckland the Point England recreational reserve. It comprises 45 hectares of land which we are going to discuss in some detail—the past present and future of this land. It is in our view a much-loved public recreational reserve needed for future generations. What this bill does is cut across the Resource Management Act (RMA) and the Reserves Act. It revokes the reserve status of 11.69 hectares of the reserve and it legislatively compels Auckland Council to rezone this recreational reserve as mixed urban housing. So it takes a large chunk—about a third—of what is one of the most precious expanses of waterfront urban parkland in our country's biggest city and plonks right in the middle of it a housing estate and it cuts across as I was saying the RMA and the Reserves Act to do that. We will make clear in the course of the debate that we believe this presents an unacceptable loss to the community of a highly valuable public asset and a recreational asset that currently includes sports fields and a walkway and various other recreational facilities. It is used regularly by thousands of people in the community and I think that explains why public feeling has been running so high in the community about this bill. The other argument that we will explore is the precedent that this bill sets in Parliament by cutting across both the RMA and the Reserves Act to take away public parkland. It has been described by both Auckland Council's governing body and the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board as setting an unfortunate precedent. In revoking the reserve status of the land and cutting across the RMA it denies the public—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is in a different part. What you are talking about is in Part 2. We are on Part 1. PHIL TWYFORD: Sure. It denies the public the normal rights of participation to have a say. So we will go into more detail on those things but let me just make a couple of comments about some of the provisions in Part 1. There is an interesting cast of characters which we are going to get to know a lot better listed in clause 3 in Part 1—the interpretation clause. Auckland Council looms large in this debate. It is the owner of this land on behalf of the people of Auckland. Auckland Council has had quite a lot to say about this bill and we will be hearing more about that. I suppose it is worth just taking a moment to think about the descriptions of the different land parcels that are listed there. Point England Reserve as I was saying is 45 hectares of land. Clause 3 talks about development land" which is the 11.69 hectares that the Crown through this bill is essentially taking out of the reserve and turning over to housing status. So what that leaves is a parcel of land on either side of the so-called development land which it refers to as the "remaining reserve land". We will talk a bit more about that because there are amendments on the Table that I think are very interesting in directing some would say—we would say "micro-managing"—the Auckland Council as to exactly what it should do with land that it owns. I think that a theme that we are going to be returning to in the course of the debate is this highly intrusive micro-managing of Auckland Council and its administration of this recreational reserve land cutting out the community that lives around this reserve. The other character in the cast that is listed in the interpretation clause in these provisions is the "Housing Act Minister". That character is particularly important in this drama because I think that he has brought to this bill a number of attributes that have become consistent with the style of his tenure as environment Minister and building and housing Minister. What we are seeing I think—and I want to quote from a presentation that was made at an environmental law conference yesterday that cited this bill. It talked about the fact that this bill is an example of an ongoing trend towards tinkering and ad hockery and towards the erosion of the rights of access to environmental justice a contempt for conventional RMA due process which appears to have become the norm under this Government—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I mentioned to the member before that anything to do with the RMA is in Part 2 so I will ask the member to come back. Part 1 has three clauses and so I ask you to tighten it up and just concentrate on the substance of Part 1. PHIL TWYFORD: Sure. Thank you Mr Chairman. If I could just cite the source of that reference before it was Simon Berry who is a senior partner in the environmental law specialist firm Berry Simons. The other provision in Part 1 that I thought was interesting and worth commenting on—and it might seem trite—is clause 4 in Part 1 which says that "This Act binds the Crown." Students of jurisprudence will know that the default position is that legislation does not bind the Crown unless an enactment—a bill like this—expressly provides that the Crown is so bound and that is contained within section 27 of the Interpretation Act. But the practice that we have with our legislation in this Parliament is that unless there are good reasons for it not to do so legislation ought to bind the Crown. That makes sense. The great irony in that provision in the context of this bill is that this bill might bind the Crown but when it comes to binding it is not the binding of the Crown that is so offensive to the public about this bill; is the binding by the Crown of the local community and of Auckland's democratically elected representatives through their local council including their local board because this one of the most intrusive micro-managing unwelcome bills that we have seen for a very long time. That is why it has been characterised by one of the leading environmental law specialists as an example of the kind of ad hockery that has become the norm under this Government. Thank you."