O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): At the first reading of this bill I expressed on behalf of New Zealand First some very grave concerns about the loss of this important reserve land. But we voted as a party to send the bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee because we wanted to hear what the submissions would be from all of the affected people especially the local people. Now we know the depth of opposition and why so that reiterates New Zealand First's original position which is that our priority is in fact the preservation of this reserve land and it still is—and the local people and the vast majority of submissions support that.Having said that New Zealand First members have always wanted to see more land available for the development of housing in Auckland. In fact we have been saying so for at least 6 years. National actually created this housing crisis. It created it fundamentally through excessive immigration and through other inaction and now it is in panic mode trying to find enough residential land because of the difficulties that it created in the first place. That includes rushing to try to use up valuable reserve land like this. National itself seems to admit that now by saying that it is prepared to go out and get land whether it is reserve land or otherwise. I do not quite understand what it was that Bill English said recently because it was not very clear but he did make it clear that they are not doing enough and I cannot agree with that more.The chronic need for more residential land does not justify the taking of this reserve land for residential development because there are in fact other opportunities if the Government wants to go out and get them. Buy the land that is necessary in appropriate places. This land was a gift to the people of New Zealand in 1945 for use as reserved open space for recreation and conservation purposes. Now all of that is actually in fact being used for that purpose irrespective of the fact that currently there are some cows being grazed on it—something that strangely the Minister for the Environment belabours and belabours and belabours.There are already many recreational pursuits being carried out there. The playing fields are being used. The open spaces are used for social gatherings and kids just playing. There are many events: music triathlons and so on. Those opportunities must not be lost and they must not be lost just for current needs but for future generations as well because as more and more residential development happens there will be more and more demand for this sort of land. This bill is actually going to remove effectively about a third of the land usable for those purposes and all we get in return is a paltry 300 houses only 20 percent of which are supposed to be affordable. We do not even know on what basis they will be declared to be affordable—not very affordable I suspect to a lot of people.So the position we now are in is that we have a dismal failure of the Government's housing strategy and that is leading to bad planning and it is leading to the use of inappropriate land for housing development most especially this particular reserve. The Auckland Unitary Plan actually shows that this particular area is going to have at least 20000 if not 30000 more houses in the immediate area. Those people are going to need this reserve land in the future. They will need more parks not less. I do want to compare this—because the Minister did—with the Riccarton Racecourse land. That division of land was supported by New Zealand First because the land which was surplus there was not reserve land used for recreation.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes it was.DENIS O'ROURKE: It was not and the recreation land was preserved and so were the amenity values of the racecourse. That land was surplus and furthermore in that particular legislation there were provisions to ensure that of the sections to be sold a significant portion of them—at least 30 percent—were going to be affordable and there was a definition provided for that purpose and also a mechanism to ensure that this commitment would be met and that is not the case with this land.I also want to support the conservation values for this land. Despite what the Minister says it is important as a breeding area for the northern New Zealand dotterel and pied stilts and that is one other very good reason why this land should be reserved. The foreshore is an important roosting area which will in fact be compromised by the residential development so close to it. But the preservation of the open space itself is the most important reason why this land should be preserved and the public amenity that depends on that.Housing will affect the whole reserve not just a part of it. The Minister went on and on about so much of this land being used for grazing but that is actually only incidental. It is part of a management regime for the land and also is a way of funding the maintenance of the reserve. It is not a fundamental use of the land and he knows that. He is actually misrepresenting that situation completely. If he does not know that then he is dumber than I think he is and believe me I think he is pretty dumb right now.The Auckland Council submission also supports the New Zealand First position. It talks about the highly valued public reserve". It does talk about the precedent of using special legislation to get rid of reserve land. That is a serious issue because it means that it will happen again in the future especially if this Government stays in power.Also of course it is being used for the Treaty settlement of Ngāti Paoa. Reserves are set aside to stop all of that happening—to stop all of that happening.Marama Fox: Treaty settlements?DENIS O'ROURKE: It is no small—yes that included. And it is no small matter that special legislation is being brought down to reverse both those issues: the preservation of reserve land and to stop it being used for any other purpose including residential development by Ngāti Paoa. And that is the truth of that matter. That is what reserves are for.I also think it is a great shame that the Government is pitching the community against Māori in this way. The Government should be going out and finding the land that is necessary for housing and should not be resorting to reserve land in this way. The need for a settlement with Ngāti Paoa has got nothing to do with that. The local community and New Zealand First—we both support that settlement but that does not mean that this land needs to be taken for residential development rather than reserve land for all the proper purposes that reserve land should be for.This situation supported by the Māori Party as it always seems to do on these things blindly and stupidly—Marama Fox: Because we support iwi. Stupidly supporting iwi!DENIS O'ROURKE: —without thinking the thing through is just another National Government mess. All the caterwauling by Ms Fox will not change that. This will not make any difference to solving the housing crisis. It is a drop in a bucket. There are alternatives available. The Government should be going out there and buying private land not using reserve land. Instead it is content to destroy for ever valuable public open space and to compromise its conservation values. This is a very very bad deal. It is very very bad legislation. It will set a precedent and New Zealand First will certainly continue to vote against it."