Sage Eugenie: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSage Eugenie: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 19 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3390. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to take a call on the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. I think the fact that we are debating this bill shows the emptiness of the Government’s legislative programme. The bill was developed by the former Labour Government and the former land Minister the Hon David Parker introduced it in July 2008. It was reported back from the Primary Production Committee in September 2009 and it has languished on the Order Paper ever since.I would much rather be debating a new reserves bill to improve the protection of our marine environment. The National Government has been promising a new marine reserves bill for several elections but it has yet to deliver. New Zealand was once a world leader in marine protection—in 1977 we established the first no-take marine reserve at Leigh off Cape Rodney—but we now lag well behind. We have got less than half a percent of our sea space protected as marine reserve and most of that is around the Subantarctic Islands and the Kermadec Islands. But we are debating this bill instead of a new marine reserves bill. I am pleased though that we are not debating the changes to the Resource Management Act which was another piece of legislation that the Government promised but has stalled.The Green Party is supporting this bill. We opposed it at its first reading and that was largely because of the changes associated with the Auckland Art Gallery and the extension to the art gallery taking over some land in Albert Park. The bill enables some of the land in Albert Park to be alienated so that it can be amalgamated with the title of the Auckland Art Gallery. That has now happened. It is a fait accompli. The legislation is retrospective in legalising that so we will be supporting this bill.I would like to pick up a few comments made by the previous speaker Stuart Smith. He seemed to associate the bill with the Rules Reduction Taskforce. I would be very concerned if that is where the Rules Reduction Taskforce is going because this bill and the Reserves Act are about proper legal process when it comes to decisions about land status. Certainly this bill is making some small changes to the status of particular parcels of land where roads have been widened—for example in Westland Tai Poutini National Park Kahurangi National Park and Paparoa National Park—but it is not seeking to change fundamentally the content of legislation which I think was where the member was heading with the Government’s efforts to undermine good regulation that actually protects the wider community interests.Although I am grateful to the Hon Damien O’Connor for his detailed explanation of what the select committee did in relation to the esplanade reserve at Ōpua and the additional clauses that the select committee recommended be included they were very controversial because those clauses were effectively overriding the Reserves Act and the processes under the Reserves Act and were enabling the Far North District Council to grant easements over the esplanade reserve which would be contrary to the provisions of the Reserves Act. That is why we strongly support Supplementary Order Paper 206 in the Minister’s name which takes out clauses 34A 34B and 34C because they are controversial. I think that had they been in the bill as originally introduced then potentially it would have attracted a lot more submissions because of the precedent nature of those changes to the Reserves Act to make it much easier for councils to accommodate commercial activities on public land that have no place to be there. We are very pleased that the Supplementary Order Paper is going through to take those changes to the Reserves Act out of the bill because they are controversial.I think that some of the other changes—particularly the ones where there are changes to land status in three national parks to accommodate road widening—highlight the need for really good process when development activities that will affect reserve land and the value of that landare going to occur. The road widening at Punakaiki for example resulted in the clearance of some vegetation in the national park—some of the magnificent Nīkau palms there. It occurred right opposite the entrance to the Pancake Rocks walk and it certainly allowed a lot more parking for buses and cars but it has meant that there is quite a transition in what was quite a narrow corridor through the park which made people appreciate the park more—its landscapes—and which made traffic slow down. It is now a very wide tarsealed road. It has happened. It is appropriate that it be authorised through the bill but it does demonstrate that perhaps the process that the Transport Agency and its predecessors went through was not that robust—the fact that it has now come to Parliament seeking retrospective provision for that. We are supporting the bill and we are very pleased with the Supplementary Order Paper that removes those provisions around Ōpua. Thank you.