The Primary Production Committee has examined the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill and recommends that it be passed with the amendments shown.
Introduction
This bill is intended to make a number of changes to the status of parcels of land, land titles, and previous Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Acts. While the convention is that bills such as this do not include controversial matters, this was not the case in this situation as this bill included a number of issues which were arguably controversial and the committee is of the view that Parliament should consider whether the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal bill remains a process for non-controversial matters or not.
Sugar Loaf Islands Marine Protection Area
We recommend the deletion of clauses 42, 43, and 44 from the bill. Removing these clauses has the support of all the parties who made submissions on these clauses of the bill. This would allow further consultation with all affected parties, and enable the Government response to the report of the Foreshore and Seabed Ministerial Review Panel to be incorporated in any future resolution of this matter.
Other matters
We recommend the insertion of new clauses 34A, 34B, and 34C to enable the Far North District Council to grant easements over part of a local purpose esplanade reserve in Opua to help the operation of a neighbouring business.
We also received a considerable number of submissions relating to other clauses contained in the bill. While we do not wish to recommend any further amendments, we do wish to comment on the evidence we heard regarding the following clauses:
Albert Park–Auckland Art Gallery development
A majority of the submissions we received concerned the Auckland Art Gallery development in Albert Park. Almost without exception, submitters were opposed to the development and the way the Auckland City Council has proceeded with the development under the assumption that a non-controversial bill would be “rubber stamped” by Parliament. Many submitters would have liked the clauses relating to the gallery’s development to be deleted from the bill.
Submitters told us they felt the gallery’s extension had alienated land defined and protected as Albert Park under the Auckland Improvement Trust Act 1971. Legal advice on the matter indicated that commencing construction has not involved any alienation of the park land under the Act, as the council continued to own the land for recreation and amusement purposes.
However, regardless of the advised legal position, most submitters and some on the committee believe the land has been alienated from Albert Park which is at odds with how the public believe reserve land should be treated.
Also, although the council can be said to have followed due process in gaining approval for the development, concerns were raised about the way the council had gained the necessary legal consents for the development.
Through this bill, the committee and Parliament are being asked to approve the amalgamation of part of Albert Park with the freehold land that contains the main Auckland Art Gallery, to avoid a difficult and impractical administrative problem where the gallery would be sited on more than one allotment, partly inside and partly outside the park with the park land still subject to the Reserves Act 1977.
This caused considerable debate in the committee. We were concerned at being placed in the position of having to effectively “rubber stamp” and condone what we believe to be an inappropriate process. We were not impressed with the Auckland City Council’s attitude to the Parliamentary process and we do not expect local government in New Zealand to employ similar approaches to developing reserve land in future.
Some of us believe the clauses relating to the Art Gallery should be deleted from the bill, and we all believe that the matter should have been dealt with separately through a different parliamentary process.
Auckland volcanic cones land
The bill proposes to amend the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act 1915 so that the decision making power in relation to excavations on private land adjoining or abutting public reserves containing Auckland’s volcanic cones would lie with the Minister of Conservation, instead of with the Governor-General through an authorisation in Council.
The rationale for this amendment is that it is inefficient for the Governor-General to be required to approve minor excavations on private land adjoining or abutting public reserves containing the volcanic cones.
Many of the submissions we received were opposed to the decision-making power being passed to the Minister of Conservation and asserted that the volcanic cones would have less protection than they have currently.
We have learned that in practice the current decision-making process has applications for earthworks exemptions being referred directly to the Governor-General for approval by the Minister for Land Information on the recommendation of the Minister of Conservation.
We believe that while the current decision-making process for the cones has been demonstrated not to be completely satisfactory, it is preferable to vesting the sole decision-making power for the cones in the Minister of Conservation, or Department of Conservation officials. This view would be satisfied by maintaining the status quo until a review seeking means of protecting the cones in perpetuity can be carried out.
Lookout Point land
Clauses 18 to 20 relate to land in the Waitaki District known as Lookout Point or Forrester Heights. The submissions we received concern one key issue: whether Lookout Point was mistakenly treated as reserve land under Reserves Act legislation, or whether the council is attempting to circumvent the law to enable a building development.
Having reviewed their records, Land Information New Zealand and the Department of Conservation are satisfied that treating Lookout Point as a reserve was indeed a genuine mistake, resulting from the various meanings and legal uses of the word “reserve”. While we appreciate the sentiment of submitters and acknowledge there is contention on this issue, after receiving advice from Land Information New Zealand and the Department of Conservation we believe that the land was actually classified as “reserves” for an endowment in aid of borough funds rather than as a recreation or similar reserve.
Appendix
Committee process
The Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill was referred to the committee on 10 March 2009. The closing date for submissions was 24 April 2009. We received and considered 37 submissions from interested groups and individuals. We heard 19 submissions.
We received advice from Land Information New Zealand and the Department of Conservation.
Committee membership
Shane Ardern (Chairperson)
Hon Jim Anderton
Brendon Burns (from 6 May 2009)
Hon John Carter
Dr Ashraf Choudhary
Sandra Goudie
Hon George Hawkins (until 6 May 2009)
Colin King
Moana Mackey (until 6 May 2009)
Hon Damien O’Connor (from 6 May 2009)
Sue Bradford was a non-voting member of the committee for this item of business
Commentary
Recommendation
The Primary Production Committee has examined the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill and recommends that it be passed with the amendments shown.
Introduction
This bill is intended to make a number of changes to the status of parcels of land, land titles, and previous Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Acts. While the convention is that bills such as this do not include controversial matters, this was not the case in this situation as this bill included a number of issues which were arguably controversial and the committee is of the view that Parliament should consider whether the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal bill remains a process for non-controversial matters or not.
Sugar Loaf Islands Marine Protection Area
We recommend the deletion of clauses 42, 43, and 44 from the bill. Removing these clauses has the support of all the parties who made submissions on these clauses of the bill. This would allow further consultation with all affected parties, and enable the Government response to the report of the Foreshore and Seabed Ministerial Review Panel to be incorporated in any future resolution of this matter.
Other matters
We recommend the insertion of new clauses 34A, 34B, and 34C to enable the Far North District Council to grant easements over part of a local purpose esplanade reserve in Opua to help the operation of a neighbouring business.
We also received a considerable number of submissions relating to other clauses contained in the bill. While we do not wish to recommend any further amendments, we do wish to comment on the evidence we heard regarding the following clauses:
Albert Park–Auckland Art Gallery development
A majority of the submissions we received concerned the Auckland Art Gallery development in Albert Park. Almost without exception, submitters were opposed to the development and the way the Auckland City Council has proceeded with the development under the assumption that a non-controversial bill would be by Parliament. Many submitters would have liked the clauses relating to the gallery’s development to be deleted from the bill.
Submitters told us they felt the gallery’s extension had alienated land defined and protected as Albert Park under the Auckland Improvement Trust Act 1971. Legal advice on the matter indicated that commencing construction has not involved any alienation of the park land under the Act, as the council continued to own the land for recreation and amusement purposes.
However, regardless of the advised legal position, most submitters and some on the committee believe the land has been alienated from Albert Park which is at odds with how the public believe reserve land should be treated.
Also, although the council can be said to have followed due process in gaining approval for the development, concerns were raised about the way the council had gained the necessary legal consents for the development.
Through this bill, the committee and Parliament are being asked to approve the amalgamation of part of Albert Park with the freehold land that contains the main Auckland Art Gallery, to avoid a difficult and impractical administrative problem where the gallery would be sited on more than one allotment, partly inside and partly outside the park with the park land still subject to the Reserves Act 1977.
This caused considerable debate in the committee. We were concerned at being placed in the position of having to effectively and condone what we believe to be an inappropriate process. We were not impressed with the Auckland City Council’s attitude to the Parliamentary process and we do not expect local government in New Zealand to employ similar approaches to developing reserve land in future.
Some of us believe the clauses relating to the Art Gallery should be deleted from the bill, and we all believe that the matter should have been dealt with separately through a different parliamentary process.
Auckland volcanic cones land
The bill proposes to amend the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act 1915 so that the decision making power in relation to excavations on private land adjoining or abutting public reserves containing Auckland’s volcanic cones would lie with the Minister of Conservation, instead of with the Governor-General through an authorisation in Council.
The rationale for this amendment is that it is inefficient for the Governor-General to be required to approve minor excavations on private land adjoining or abutting public reserves containing the volcanic cones.
Many of the submissions we received were opposed to the decision-making power being passed to the Minister of Conservation and asserted that the volcanic cones would have less protection than they have currently.
We have learned that in practice the current decision-making process has applications for earthworks exemptions being referred directly to the Governor-General for approval by the Minister for Land Information on the recommendation of the Minister of Conservation.
We believe that while the current decision-making process for the cones has been demonstrated not to be completely satisfactory, it is preferable to vesting the sole decision-making power for the cones in the Minister of Conservation, or Department of Conservation officials. This view would be satisfied by maintaining the status quo until a review seeking means of protecting the cones in perpetuity can be carried out.
Lookout Point land
Clauses 18 to 20 relate to land in the Waitaki District known as Lookout Point or Forrester Heights. The submissions we received concern one key issue: whether Lookout Point was mistakenly treated as reserve land under Reserves Act legislation, or whether the council is attempting to circumvent the law to enable a building development.
Having reviewed their records, Land Information New Zealand and the Department of Conservation are satisfied that treating Lookout Point as a reserve was indeed a genuine mistake, resulting from the various meanings and legal uses of the word . While we appreciate the sentiment of submitters and acknowledge there is contention on this issue, after receiving advice from Land Information New Zealand and the Department of Conservation we believe that the land was actually classified as for an endowment in aid of borough funds rather than as a recreation or similar reserve.
Appendix
Committee process
The Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill was referred to the committee on 10 March 2009. The closing date for submissions was 24 April 2009. We received and considered 37 submissions from interested groups and individuals. We heard 19 submissions.
We received advice from Land Information New Zealand and the Department of Conservation.
Committee membership
Shane Ardern (Chairperson)
Hon Jim Anderton
Brendon Burns (from 6 May 2009)
Hon John Carter
Dr Ashraf Choudhary
Sandra Goudie
Hon George Hawkins (until 6 May 2009)
Colin King
Moana Mackey (until 6 May 2009)
Hon Damien O’Connor (from 6 May 2009)
Sue Bradford was a non-voting member of the committee for this item of business