Brian Rudman: Sneaky raid on volcanic cones

Parliamentarians and their bureaucratic masters have a strange view of what is "non-controversial."

A couple of weeks ago, at that sleepy time of day when MPs' tummies are rumbling in anticipation of the dinner gong, Dr Richard Worth, wearing his Minister for Land Information turban, introduced the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill.

Labour MP Kelvin Davis probably reflected the view of most in the House when he mockingly rose "in support of this riveting legislation".

This, no doubt, was the reaction hoped for by the bureaucrats trying to slip through their tricky changes. Most MPs fell for it.

But had they dug deeper, they would have discovered that all three of the 16 proposed law changes involving Auckland, are, shall we say, highly debatable. (Given the strike rate on Auckland matters - which I know something about - it makes one wonder what skeletons might be buried in the act's 13 other proposed changes from around the country.)

The bill is a time-honoured device of Government housekeeping, used to make changes to the titles and status of reserve land without going through the trials of special legislation.

But under standing orders, the changes have to be "non-controversial" and "have the consent of all parties involved".

As I suggested earlier, not every MP fell for it. The Greens' Sue Bradford loudly demanded changes to the clause dealing with the Auckland Art Gallery development.

She said it was "not innocuous and it is not non-controversial". And whatever your views on the new gallery, the proposed hijacking of 1117sq m of Albert Park reserve land to provide space for the gallery additions is controversial.

Auckland City Council has long known it faced a problem taking this reserve land but has pushed on regardless. Excavation has taken place in arrogant expectation that the land grab will get a posthumous rubber stamping from the parliamentarians.

More alarming to me is the Department of Conservation's attempt to alter the famous 1915 act protecting Auckland's volcanic cones.

This act lay dormant and forgotten for many years until early 2003, when the Volcanic Cones Society suddenly resurrected it, miraculously saving Mt Roskill from the state road-builder's bulldozers as a result.

DoC now wants to seize control of this act.

For nearly 100 years, to gain an exemption from the act's prohibition on cutting into the slopes of an Auckland volcanic cone, you have had to seek "express authorisation" from the Governor in Council.

In other words, you have to go to the top. The new bill says this is "no longer appropriate" and proposes "that consent must now be sought from the Minister of Conservation".

This change is highly controversial. First, it diminishes the enormity of the request, reducing it from a decision the Government as a whole makes to one by a single minister and his bureaucrats.

Second, given the gutless record of DoC during the Mt Roskill saga - and before and since as far as Auckland's cones are concerned - this change is highly troubling.

Not only did DoC give up the fight to save Mt Roskill, leaving the battle to the volunteers of the Cones Society, but when the 1915 act was unearthed, DoC was very dismissive. DoC in-house legal opinion at the time mused that it "may have been more concerned with engineering stability than the environmental effects".

This despite the 1915 Prime Minister who introduced the act saying it had been framed with a view to ending the destruction of Auckland's cones.

It was Transit NZ, which acknowledged the act's legal authority, not DoC. As recently as last October, DoC was still showing more interest in saving Westland snails than protecting Auckland volcanoes.

At the time, the Environment Court had just upheld the cone society's objections to a housing development on the northern slopes of Mt Wellington. Even so, this left a 2.4ha sliver of the slope still at risk from future development. When I suggested to then

Conservation Minister Steve Chadwick that she buy it and join it with the adjacent reserve, she said no, that DoC's "highest priorities centre on the preservation of our unique and precious biodiversity..." Only "in extraordinary circumstances" would "significant expenditure" be directed elsewhere.

With support like that, I say, leave it to the G-G.

As for the third proposed Auckland law change, that's a laugh I'll leave to Monday.