Upston Louise: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeUpston Louise: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 19 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3380. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Land Information): I move That the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill be now read a second time. It is with great pleasure that I move the second reading of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. This is an omnibus bill that is provided for in Standing Order 262(1)(e). The intent of such a bill which I will refer to as a “ROLD” bill is to make changes to a land status that cannot otherwise be dealt with easily. “ROLD” bills deal with authorisations transfers and validations of matters relating to Crown land reserves and other lands held for public or private purposes. Such bills can be used to correct historic oversights and errors or to clarify and simplify issues regarding land status—particularly when determining whether a certain use or method of management is legally permissible. The last “ROLD” bill was enacted in 2003 and by 2008 sufficient matters had arisen to warrant this present bill. It is being read again in the House today as a result of a comprehensive consultation process and thorough consideration of public submissions. I would like to put on record my thanks to the Primary Production Committee—which at the time was chaired by Shane Ardern—and to all the other members of the committee who have been involved in progressing the bill to this point.Among the provisions considered by the committee are several that provide benefits to communities and community organisations throughout New Zealand. For example clauses 38 to 41 of the bill remove a restrictive clause from a 1901 statute and make it possible for the Dunedin City Council to regularise a long-term lease for the use of reserve land by the Port Chalmers Bowling Club thus ending many years of uncertainty for the club. If we go further north clauses 28 to 34 remove specific hospital-related purposes and other constraints on five titles for land held by the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board. That change will enable the board to make more effective use of the land when providing health and disability support services to the Nelson-Marlborough community. And in Northland clauses 21 to 23 formalise a community-supported agreement that reserve land in Māhinepua Bay be vested as a Māori reservation with the trustees of the adjoining Māori reservation.Shortly I want to go through two substantive changes to the bill but first I would like to comment on a general issue that was raised during the select committee process and which is referred to specifically in the Primary Production Committee’s commentary on the bill. An overriding issue which arose in discussions on a number of clauses in the bill is whether applications that could be considered controversial should be included in a “ROLD” bill. The convention is for “ROLD” bills to deal with non-controversial matters. However several applications—and two examples are the Auckland City Council’s application relating to Albert Park and the Department of Conservation’s application relating to land adjoining Auckland’s volcanic cones—were considered by some to be controversial. The committee questioned whether a “ROLD” bill was the appropriate legislative vehicle for some of these issues. The committee felt it was being asked effectively to rubber-stamp what were controversial issues and it questioned whether or not councils may view the bill as an opportunity to avoid other difficult and time-consuming legislative processes. This is a matter that Parliament may wish to consider. However it is worth noting that the convention that “ROLD” bills deal with non-controversial land matters was intended to ensure that changes remain technical. The reality is that most of the changes in this bill as reported back by the committee are technical changes that deal only with administrative and technical details.The Primary Production Committee recommended two substantive changes to the bill. The first was the result of a decision by the Department of Conservation to withdraw its application relating to the Sugar Loaf Islands in New Plymouth. The committee has recommended that clauses 42 to 44 which relate to this application be deleted. This change had the consent of all parties involved and I am comfortable with the removal of these clauses. I believe the committee has also recommended the insertion of clauses 34A 34B and 34C which deal with a parcel of esplanade reserve land at Ōpua in the Bay of Islands. I believe the committee acted with good intentions when it recommended the insertion of these clauses; however I do not believe they are suitable for inclusion in the bill. To that end I intend during the Committee stage to move a Supplementary Order Paper seeking their deletion and I will provide detail of that in the Committee of the whole House.I will also seek your support during the Committee stage for a number of other proposed amendments. Most of these are of minor and technical nature. For example updates are required to reflect the changes in Auckland local government that have taken place since the committee reported the bill back to Parliament. Clause 5 which amends the Reserves Act 1977 is to be deleted because the matters dealt with by this clause have since been resolved by the statutes amendment legislation that was recently enacted in this House. Technical amendments are also proposed to clauses 21 to 23 which as I mentioned earlier formalise a community-supported agreement to have an area of esplanade reserve at Māhinepua Bay in Northland declared a Māori reservation. These amendments clarify the process to be followed to achieve this aim. Clauses 18 to 20 concerning Waitaki District Council’s application regarding Lookout Point are to be deleted. These clauses are no longer required because the matter they deal with has been resolved by the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Lands Empowering Act. I also intend to recommend the deletion of clauses 10 to 11 which concern decision making for earthworks on Auckland volcanic cones and clauses 24 to 27 which concern Marlborough District Council land in Picton. I have made this suggestion in order to allow further consultation with interested parties.I wish to make a few final comments on one of the provisions mentioned in the committee’s report. Clauses 6 to 9 enable a technical change to the status of a parcel of land in Albert Park which has been designated as a local purpose art gallery reserve. This change is administrative and amends the definition of Albert Park in Auckland City for this purpose. The provisions in the bill enable the amalgamation of land in Albert Park with the adjacent parcel of freehold land which the gallery sits on. Having both parcels on the same title will avoid costly and time-consuming administrative issues. The committee’s report outlines the concerns that some members shared with submitters who were opposed to the expansion of the gallery. Submitters were under the impression that the “ROLD” bill was enabling what they viewed as an alienation of reserve land in Albert Park. In a technical and legal sense the clauses in the “ROLD” bill were not enabling any alienation. The former Auckland City Council reclassified the relevant land as local purpose art gallery reserve land in accordance with the Reserves Act 2006. The council submitted a notice of requirement for a designation under the Resource Management Act 1991 which was approved by the Environment Court in August 2008. Resource consents for works within Albert Park not covered by the designation were also granted by the Environment Court in its 2008 decision. It was these processes that gave the council the necessary authority to proceed with the expansion of the gallery.Members of the committee acknowledged that there had not been any technical alienation; however they felt that although the council had followed due process and was within its legal rights to begin the gallery expansion the park was originally classified as recreational reserve with the intention that the land be preserved as open space. The Primary Production Committee did not approve of the city council’s approach to dealing with this matter and I do have some sympathy with its view. However any problematic issues with the gallery development occurred in processes beyond the scope of this bill. The clauses in the “ROLD” bill will prevent Auckland Art Gallery management from having to deal with unnecessary administrative difficulty in operating the gallery as it is. This will benefit all Auckland ratepayers by enabling the efficient and effective management of an important cultural and entertainment resource.The provisions in this bill will give effect to applications by local authorities and Government agencies for technical changes to land status that remove administrative and technical barriers that would otherwise prevent owners and lessees from effectively and efficiently managing and administrating the land. I commend this bill to the House.