O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Could I just clarify what you have just said? I understand that what we have before us in the report from the Local Government and Environment Committee relating to Part 2 includes a new section 15AA in clause 164.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yes we have talked about that—that is fine.DENIS O'ROURKE: OK; that is what I want to speak to. I think it is important that we do address that in this debate because if the other provisions of this bill are bad enough and New Zealand First says they could not be much worse then in fact clause 164 which would insert new section 15AA is in our opinion if possible worse still. We think it attacks the integrity of the Reserves Act and creates a process by which private interests can prevail over public interests in terms of reserve land. It puts in place a process that makes that not just possible but a process that makes it almost inevitable subject to certain conditions which we think are too easily met.The reason I say that is this: if you look at the section itself the new section 15AA you will see as the previous speaker Michael Wood said that it is tied to a process either for a resource consent or for a change to a district or regional plan. Therefore this idea of being able to exchange land gets tied up with that process and that process has to go forward. That is why I say it is almost inevitable subject to some conditions and that is what I want to question the Minister in the chair Nick Smith about really.When you look at the net-benefit provision in new subsection (5)(b) you struggle to understand if you are reading it fairly what that really would mean in terms of limitation. That is really the only effective limitation to this happening. There has to be a net benefit. The net benefit which is difficult in itself to understand—how on earth can you quantify what is a benefit over one reserve in respect of what could be another reserve for an exchange land? How is it possible to actually quantify that in terms of what would be a net benefit? In other words you get more out of the new piece of land than you would out of the reserve that is going to be extinguished.To make that worse if you look at the word community" it has to be a net benefit "for the community that uses benefits from or enjoys the reserve." What is the community for these purposes? Does it mean the area immediately around the reserve? Does it mean the whole locality? Does it mean the entire city or town? Does it mean the region? What does it mean?What I am pointing out to the Minister is that this is a very loosely worded subsection. This is the only saviour that the people who wish to keep such a reserve could point to and yet they are going to have a hard job because of how loosely this section is drafted. It refers to community it refers to net benefit and so on. It is very difficult to establish. So that is why I say that once this process gets going it is almost inevitable that we will lose reserves all over the country where in fact there actually is not going to be any genuine benefit. The real thrust of this is typical National Government attitudes that these public interests are second-class to the private interests that will be driving this.That is what this whole provision is really all about. That is why New Zealand First will never vote for a provision such as this. It is the kind of thing that the Government is already putting forward like the Point England development for example. The same sort of thing would happen under this provision as is happening there. This is a poor piece of legislation. It is not going to assist greatly in solving the housing crisis but it will compromise the Reserves Act and the ability of communities and people to preserve their recreation reserves in the places that they are now. That is why this is so objectionable. It makes it so difficult for communities to resist this because of this awful loose and shoddy piece of legislation which should certainly not be allowed to pass.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call any member I just want to place on the record my apology to Michael Wood. I misread the section and did not see the consequential amendment to which he was referring and I inappropriately criticised him. I withdraw and apologise."