Parker David: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6762. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): There are children at school who were not born when this bill was first introduced into the House. I know that because I was Minister for Land Information at the time in 2008 when the bill was introduced. It is now 7 years ago—7 or 8 years ago—since this bill was introduced. I feel a bit older myself actually. I have had to go back through the records to remember some of the detail of it. Some of the details I do remember and the reasons why the Labour Party is supporting this bill but it does have to be pointed out that delays over this number of years serve no one’s interests. They increase the costs of these processes because everyone looks at it and looks at it again and again. Parliament ends up having a number of goes at it. People who are interested in the issues that are at large underneath the bill are dragged back into their archives year after year thinking: “Where’s that happening?”. I know in respect of one of the matters affected by this bill which relates to Taieri Airport that every time I run into Julian Smith who is one of the owners of the Otago Daily Times he asks me: “Where’s that provision in the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill that’s meant to be clarifying the status of Taieri Airport?”. That is important to them because they are worried that their status is uncertain and that they could actually lose their rights to run the airport. That is one example that has caused inconvenience to people.Another one that is more serious is down my way where the losses which amount to millions of dollars have actually been caused to one of the district councils and actually relate to an issue in Jacqui Dean’s electorate in Ōāmaru. In the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill it was clarified that the land that overlooks the town which is called Lookout Point in the original version of this legislation and was perhaps a misnaming was originally given to the predecessor of the Waitaki District Council as endowment land but at some point in the process way back when it was described as reserve land. Therefore there was controversy as to whether the council could sell that land and realise its worth. The council wanted—and indeed needed—to sell that land because it wanted to realise the money from that land to pay for other important works by the district council including the building or the rebuilding of the opera house in Ōāmaru which cost some millions of dollars. It entered into contracts for the sale of sections on this piece of land—Forrester Heights I think is the proper name—and those contracts were all subject to the legal clarification of this point which was necessary in order for them to complete the subdivision. Because Parliament has delayed so long in this all of those contracts reached the expiration date by which time property prices in Ōāmaru had dropped and none of those contracts were confirmed—they all fell over—and the Waitaki District Council as a consequence lost millions of dollars.That is the consequence of this sort of delay in what seems somewhat mundane legislation. I think that is probably the worst instance here. In fact it was so bad that Jacqui Dean at the request of her council sponsored a local bill to give effect to this provision that was in the original Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill and this Parliament passed the separate bill—the local bill. That again caused waste. It cost money because a local bill costs a council money to promote not just its own legal fees but it has actually got to pay a fee to Parliament to introduce a local bill. Then the time of this House was set aside for considering that local bill instead of other matters. None of that would have been necessary if this bill had just been advanced perhaps half a decade earlier. It might seem unreasonable that this bill could—sorry I should not say that. It was an entirely reasonable expectation on the part of the people around New Zealand whose interests were affected by this bill that it was dealt with promptly but unfortunately it has not been. The matter relating to the Auckland Art Gallery—I thank Minister Lotu-Iiga for that description—was a little bit controversial for some who saw the expansion of the art gallery as some improper extension into the adjacent Albert Park in Auckland. Again as the Minister has clarified the contention around this bill was misplaced as evidenced by the fact that it could be done even without this bill being passed—so sometimes people claim controversy when they disagree with something even when legally it is not controversial.The matters in this bill that are being addressed are not legally controversial. They often fix mis-descriptions of property that have occurred in parts of New Zealand over a period of time and as a consequence it is common every 5 years or so for a reserves and other lands disposal bill to be introduced into this House. The Primary Production Committee did remove provisions that it did not think were appropriately timed in respect of Auckland volcanic cones. I am sure my colleague Phil Goff will mention that in his contribution. Otherwise this bill is relatively non-controversial.I have one final thing to say in respect of Taieri Airport. I recently raised with the then Minister of Land Information why it was that in order to get this clarification as to the status of the Taieri Airport land it was necessary for the Crown to say that in the event that that land is ever sold they get half of the proceeds of sale. I have never understood the theory for that. The Minister was going to look into it. I have not heard where that has ended and I am afraid therefore that the provisions as they stand in the bill will not fix that defect. Having said that those at Taieri Airport although they would have preferred otherwise more important want the legislation to go through even if it has that provision which is not to their ideal liking. I recommend this bill to be passed by the House.