Sage Eugenie: Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sage Eugenie: Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8041. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker and thank you. I am pleased to take a short call on the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. In starting I would like to take issue with the comments of Paul Goldsmith. Coming from the urban jungle of central Auckland as he does he may not be aware of the significance of the Crown’s public landholdings the lands held by the Department of Conservation and Land Information New Zealand; nor may he be aware of the location of those lands. A lot of our conservation lands are in our mountainous areas our alpine areas in Fiordland. They are remote from our major population centres. When you talk about Land Information New Zealand lands they are often pastoral leases. They may certainly be found in the hinterland of Oamaru in the Mackenzie Basin and in the South Island high country but they are not immediately adjacent to the Oamaru town. That is why this land at Lookout Point is significant because it is public land in the coastal area. 
We do not have a lot of coastal land that is protected and to which the public can have access except of course in Auckland where there has been very foresightful work over many years by the Auckland Regional Council to establish its network of regional coastal parks. But certainly many in the community in Oamaru as the Local Government and Environment Committee heard through submissions and the hearings very much value Lookout Point because of its sweeping views over the town and because it is such a lovely place to walk to enjoy some quiet contemplation and just to enjoy that space. That is why they are concerned at the proposals by the Waitaki District Council to alienate that land through the proposed Forrester Heights subdivision. That is why the Green Party will be voting against this bill. 
We certainly acknowledge the able chairing of the select committee by Nicky Wagner and a lot of work by Jacqui Dean in bringing the bill to the House. It was certainly an interesting and detailed look at the history of this particular area of land. A lot of the information that the select committee considered was as other members have referred to available very much thanks to the research that was put in by members of the community like Mr Monks Helen Stead Mr Crawford and others in showing the select committee some of the history of the area and bringing us photographs to show how the land was used in the past. So I would like to thank them for their huge contribution to the lawmaking process and also acknowledge the work of departmental officials and the very thorough research they did. 
The Green Party supports some clauses in the bill but in the Committee stage I put up Supplementary Order Paper 150 to seek to change clause 7 which is the clause that we object to—that Supplementary Order Paper failed—because clause 7 deals with Lookout Point and it will effectively legitimise a very poor process that the council used to initiate the Forrester Heights subdivision. It did it through a resource consent process that was not notified so there was no opportunity for the community to make submissions on that. It was a development that was being initiated by the council but there were no external commissioners so it is no wonder that a number of people in the community feel very aggrieved by this bill because of the process that the council used which lacked consultation; it did not go through a proper long-term plan consultation process either. At the select committee we were encouraged by the fact that Mayor Familton said that the council would consider the whole issue of the subdivision again but the resource consent has not been withdrawn so the council still has the legal power to proceed with the subdivision. But certainly if the bill is passed—which given the numbers it probably will be—I do hope the council takes the very good and wise advice of Rino Tirikatene in highlighting the potential natural hazard issues with those under-runners and the very significant risk of land collapse and erosion. That was very wise counsel and the Waitaki District Council would do well to heed it. 
In terms of the poor consultation process it is interesting that National members are supporting the bill when yesterday in this House we were debating the Environment Canterbury legislation and the way in which that has completely cut across basic democratic process with no ability for Cantabrians to vote for their elected councillors. This issue of principle—the need to have a good process the need to involve the community to consult well—is the reason why we are opposing the bill. 
The bill also highlights our very shabby treatment of heritage in New Zealand. The Waitaki District Council wants to sell off Lookout Point to raise funds so that it can restore the Oamaru Opera House. We know that Oamaru like Invercargill has a really distinctive precinct of heritage buildings. In Oamaru those white stone buildings and their very good condition define the town’s character. They attract visitors from around New Zealand and around the world because they are preserved in a very good state and are protected. But to repair the Oamaru Opera House more funds are needed and it is really disappointing that those funds cannot be found through better provision for heritage nationally through more generous grant schemes for that and that the council feels that it has to sell off another public asset Lookout Point to fund that. The council should not be being put in that position. 
In concluding I would again like to thank the submitters for the large amount of time and energy they put into presenting their submissions and for the very interesting and thorough way in which they discussed the history of the area and encouraged select committee members to better understand and appreciate that history. I think the issue has been thoroughly considered both by the select committee and by this House. I think the second reading debate runs to some 20 pages so it is a local bill that has been very thoroughly considered. We will be opposing it for the reasons I have outlined: the poor consultation process. Thank you.