O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First continues to oppose this bill and actually we oppose all the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) except one and that is SOP 317 in the name of Eugenie Sage.We support that for these reasons. First of all this bill actually is nothing much more than a blatant land-grab by the Government and worse still it is the theft—and I use the word theft" deliberately—of irreplaceable park land from current and future residents of Auckland. [Interruption] I know the MPs opposite do not like that because they do not like hearing the truth. Truth is their enemy and if you listen to their speeches you will know that. The truth is that this Government is taking this land by theft effectively off the people of Auckland by the most devious means: by using special legislation to avoid the usual Resource Management Act processes which would require a plan change and by attempting to sidestep the usual community consultation processes that should have taken place. The Government knows that what it is doing is wrong it knows the community is upset and it knows the community is diametrically opposed to this—that is why we are all getting so many emails about this—but it does not care.The Government does not care for two reasons—because from its point of view it is a good deal. It gets some land for housing—not much actually; only 300 houses which is a drop in the bucket—but also it gets a Treaty settlement as well. That is a cheap way of getting a Treaty settlement for the Government. It is a win-win for the Government but it is a lose-lose for the community and that is what I particularly want to speak about in support of SOP 317.The bill as a whole smacks of National Government arrogance at its worst. It treats the people in the community like dirt by ignoring what they have to say by not even having a process that they could participate in. It treats the open space provided by the reserve like it does not matter—like it is just a piece of land that you can do what you like with. In fact Nick Smith just talks about it as grazing land as if that were the truth which it certainly is not. It treats the conservation values of this land as though they were irrelevant and shows just how little regard that party has for the environment and for conservation values. It treats the Auckland Council's submission with utter disdain. That is the attitude of the National Government and that is what this bill really represents.SOP 317 would address at least part of the Government's shortcomings. It requires the proposals to be treated as a discretionary or noncomplying activity and I think that is appropriate. After all this is not just any reserve land; it is reserve land with particularly high environmental and conservation values and open space for the local community. It could not really be much more important as a reserve and yet this Government is willing to ride roughshod over all of that. The SOP would require notification it would allow the public to participate through a notification process and it would allow public scrutiny of the proposal which processes so far have not allowed. It would allow for the need for the residential land proposal to be balanced against the needs of the community for open space—not just now but in the future including the longer-distant future—and of course the conservation values as well. That balance has not been discussed and that process has not taken place and it should have.The SOP would mean an examination of the adverse environmental effects that will no doubt absolutely be the case with this bill and it would provide an opportunity for people to discuss mitigation measures—an opportunity they have not had so far. It would also allow an examination of possible alternatives. Many of those who have emailed me have said: "Look at this alternative look at that alternative." They should not have to email MPs asking for that. They should be able to participate directly in a process that allows them the opportunity to put forward proposals for alternatives. But that has not been done because of National Government arrogance. Those processes really should have taken place and they have not. In other words what this SOP does is do all the things that the Government has deliberately set out to avoid all for a paltry 300 homes and all because of an apparent proposed Treaty settlement which is actually not the subject of the bill at all.Having said that although this SOP is proposed by the Greens I am amazed by the Greens' decision to abstain on this bill—not just amazed but extremely disappointed by it because that is hardly a commitment to preserve the reserve. It is hardly a vote to keep the open space. It is hardly a vote for conservation. It is certainly not a vote to support the community. What has happened? Have the Greens gone wimpy about the environment all of a sudden? If so they had better change their name because this is not a green attitude to this particular bill. Maybe those members should have a look at how they vote on the third reading because quite frankly I have listened some of their speeches and they are completely incomprehensible. They do not make any sense to me and I think they should make up their minds as to what they really believe in. If they actually believed in the conservation values the environmental values and the support of the community they would be voting against this bill and not making some wimpy kind of fence-sitting abstention as they are making silly speeches about currently. I am giving them a good telling-off because they deserve it in this case.That is not New Zealand First's attitude to it. We know what we want. We want the reserve to stay a reserve. We want to keep the environmental and conservation values intact. We want the open space kept intact and we for one are certainly going to support the community.I have said enough about that SOP and why we are supporting it. I want to go on in the last couple of minutes to talk about some of the other SOPs. The most important of the other ones is SOP 321 which the Minister for Building and Construction has put forward. Actually this is just more National Government arrogance because what it is going to do now in this SOP is tell the Auckland Council and therefore the entire Auckland community what it should do about this reserve in a micro-managing kind of way—where the sports fields will be how much area will be sports fields and so on. That is in the face of the submission made by the Auckland Council which actually opposes the loss of any of this reserve at all. So not only is the Government not listening to the Auckland Council and the people of Auckland it now purports to tell them in a micro-managing kind of way how to deal with the rest of the reserve.I have a map here that reflects what the breakup of this reserve is going to be. What you see is a great chunk of the middle of the land taken for housing little bits of reserve around the edge and one new playing field area in addition to the existing ones. It actually makes a mess of the entire reserve—makes a dog's breakfast of it. It is not sustainable much as a reserve in nearly the way that the existing one would be and yet this Government and this Minister are so arrogant. They know best! They do not want to have any process whereby a change of the plan for this reserve would take place with public input—oh no. The Minister knows what to do! He will just tell them what to do and everyone can go and take a running jump. That is what he means: "Just do what I say and we do not care about what you want." That is what he is saying to the people of Auckland. That is National Government arrogance for you.This SOP is just a poor excuse for the decimation of the reserve. It is an attempt to appease angry residents who will not be appeased by it because they know the truth. It is an admission that the land actually is needed for recreation purposes now and much more of it will be needed in the future and that is the opposite of what the bill actually does. This is a disgraceful bill. It should never have been contemplated in the first place and we will certainly—we will certainly undoubtedly—be voting against it."