Lotu-Iiga Sam: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLotu-Iiga Sam: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6761. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections) on behalf of theMinister for Land Information: I move That the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill be now read a third time. I am pleased to see this bill pass through its final stage in the House after thorough consultation and debate in the Primary Production Committee and a successful second reading that tidied up a number of issues raised after the bill was reported back to the House. In particular I thank the House for agreeing that clauses 34A to 34C of the bill as inserted by the select committee should be omitted from the bill. Although I believe the select committee acted with good intentions the clauses challenge the integrity of parliamentary processes and I am pleased that the House has agreed to their removal.The bill is consistent with the intent of Reserves and Other Lands Disposal bills as set out in Standing Order 262(1)(e) in that it addresses land status issues that cannot be easily dealt with under other legislation. The benefits of this legislation will be evident to many New Zealanders as the clauses in the bill change the status of iconic and important land across the country ranging from Kahurangi National Park Paparoa National Park and Westland National Park through to a much loved bowling club in Port Chalmers.The Government is committed to clarifying and simplifying issues regarding land status. This bill removes unnecessary costly and time-consuming administrative and technical difficulties associated with land use on both public and private property. The changes effected by the bill will help to ensure that public and private land is managed responsibly and effectively. Obstacles to the effective use and management of land in the future are being removed and past mistakes are being put right. The bill also enables the resolution of conflict over the status of parcels of land so that all parties with an interest in the land understand what forms of use are permissible. Community interest is at the heart of the entire process.I would like to acknowledge the hard work of the Primary Production Committee. Select committees play an integral role in the parliamentary process and contribute to the development of quality legislation so I want to thank the committee and the officials from the Office of the Clerk for supporting this bill.The committee felt that this particular bill challenged its understanding of the purpose of “ROLD” bills. There is a convention that “ROLD” bills deal with non-controversial land matters and this convention was intended to ensure that changes effected by the bill remained technical. However the complicating factor for the committee when considering this bill was that although many of the changes effected by the bill are not controversial in and of themselves they may well be associated with issues or processes that are controversial.The clauses relating to the Auckland Art Gallery development in Albert Park are a good example of this issue. Most of the concerns raised by submitters are more relevant to the change in reserve classification for part of Albert Park and the resource consent process than they are to the “ROLD” bill. The change in reserve classification was undertaken by the Auckland City Council in 2006 in accordance with all the relevant requirements of the Reserves Act. The resource consent process governing the design and construction of the new art gallery ended up being approved by the Environment Court in 2008. The clauses in the “ROLD” bill have not enabled the gallery extension. Rather they will simplify the future administration of the land by ensuring the gallery is contained on one piece of land held under one legislative framework rather than on two pieces of land and under two legislative frameworks.The key issue therefore is not whether the applications included in the “ROLD” bill deal with controversial matters. It is likely that future “ROLD” bills will. The important thing is that the changes themselves remain technical. The questions asked by the Primary Production Committee were important questions to ask as it is important that the integrity of the legislative process is maintained. I am satisfied that all of the changes in the bill are necessary technical changes to the status of the land and will be beneficial not just for the applicants but for the wider communities that are affected by the changes in this bill. I would like to thank the officials from Land Information New Zealand the Department of Conservation and the Parliamentary Counsel Office who have all worked hard on this bill before during and after the consideration of the bill by the Primary Production Committee. I commend this bill to the House.