The Governance and Administration Committee has examined the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill and recommends that it be passed. We recommend all amendments unanimously.

This bill would amend the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act 1923. The Act specifies the purposes that the land at 17 Sir Peter Blake Parade, Bayswater, Auckland can be used for. It sets out that the land, or any building on it, cannot be used for private gain.

The land is owned by the Takapuna Boating Club (the club). It was originally owned by the Auckland Harbour Board and later vested in the Takapuna Borough Council in 1923¹. The land was sold to the club in 1926.²

The bill would allow part of the land, and any buildings or other improvements on it, to be used for commercial purposes so long as the site was principally used for community purposes. This is intended to enable the club to secure commercial income to fund restoration and ongoing maintenance of the boating club building at the site. The bill would also update the description of the land in Schedule 1 of the Act to more accurately describe the land that is now owned by the club.

As part of our consideration of the bill, we have examined its consistency with principles of legislative quality. We have no issues regarding the legislation’s design to bring to the attention of the House.

This is a local bill. Local bills are promoted by a local authority. They deal with issues specific to a local area and must only affect a particular locality. Auckland Council is the promoter of this bill. The council provided us with advice on the policy intent of the bill to assist our consideration.

We considered whether an Act of Parliament was the best avenue for achieving the purpose of this bill. The consideration of local bills is time- and resource-intensive, both for select committees and the promoter of the bill. We wondered whether other mechanisms might offer greater flexibility and avoid the need to amend the Act again in future. On 4 December 2024, we wrote to the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) to request advice on whether the intent of the bill could be achieved using a different mechanism, and what the advantages and disadvantages of an alternative approach could be.

DIA replied on 10 February 2025.³ It explained that the relevant land could be made subject to the Reserves Act 1977.⁴ However, under this arrangement the land would still be subject to the 1923 Act. To change this, the 1923 Act would have to be amended to remove the reference to the piece of land, or be repealed entirely.

In its oral submission, Auckland Council told us it had considered the option of repealing the Act. However, it considered that promoting this local bill was a more effective solution to enable the club to receive commercial revenue, while also requiring that the land must be principally used for community purposes.

On balance, we consider that this local bill is a suitable way to achieve the aim. However, we think that, in general, there should be a high threshold for introducing local bills. We think that local bills should be considered more as a last resort when what is intended would be impossible or impractical to achieve without primary legislation.

This commentary covers the main amendments we recommend to the bill as introduced. We do not discuss minor or technical amendments, other than to note that we propose a slight change in the bill’s title, for consistency with similar legislation.

Clause 4 of the bill would replace section 5 of the Act to update the lawful uses of the land at 17 Sir Peter Blake Parade, Bayswater, Auckland.

Proposed new section 5(1) sets out that the Auckland Council, or a body or person claiming through or under it, must use the land for the principal purposes of providing “boat sheds, public swimming baths, a social hall, or any similar community purpose”. As the successor to the Takapuna Borough Council’s title to the land, the club would be considered a body claiming through or under the Auckland Council.

Proposed new section 5(2) would allow part of the land, or any buildings or other improvements on it, to be used for commercial purposes as long as the land is principally used for “community purposes”. The policy intent of the bill is that this reference to community purposes means the purposes explicitly described in new section 5(1). We think this could be more clearly expressed. We recommend inserting new section 5(2)(a) to refer to the purposes set out in new section 5(1), rather than using the broad term “community purposes”.

Proposed new section 5(3) as introduced would require all money received from commercial uses of the land under a lease, licence, or other arrangement to be used on maintenance of the land and any building or other improvement on it, or for “community purposes”. This reference to community purposes is not intended to be restricted to the purposes described in new section 5(1). The policy intent is that proceeds could be used for broad community purposes. For example, the club could use proceeds towards providing community water sports, recreational activities such as yoga or mahjong sessions, or other community activities. This would also ensure that any potential future owner of the land, including Auckland Council, could use proceeds to fund a broad range of community purposes.

We recommend moving proposed section 5(3)(b) to become new section 5(2)(b), but do not propose any changes to the restrictions on what commercial proceeds could be used for.

As introduced, proposed section 5(3) sets out restrictions on what money received from commercial uses or the land, or buildings or other improvements on it, would be able to be used for. Section 5(3)(b), as introduced, refers to money being received under a “lease, licence, or other arrangement” for use of the land. However, we think the intent is clear that the restrictions discussed above would apply to all commercial proceeds, not just proceeds received by these means. We think that the bill should be consistent and make this intent clear.

We recommend inserting renumbered section 5(2)(b) to specify that all money received from “use of the land, buildings, or other improvements for commercial purposes” is subject to the restrictions.